Principalcommissionerofincome T.\X (Central)-L v. Shreepriya Jaipuria

••$-••,*IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI4 to 8 + ITA 349/2017 PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONEROFINCOME T.\X (CENTRAL)-l Appellant Through; Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SHREEPRIYA JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 350/2017 PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONEROFINCOME TAX (CENTRAIO-1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SURYA KANT JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 351/201 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX (CENTRAL)- 1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kuniar, Advocate versus SURYA KANT JAIPURIA .....RespondentThrough: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 352/2017 ITA 349/2017£ ConnectedMatters Page I of4 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX (CENTRAL)-1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus MANJUJAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate +ITA 353/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX (CENTRAL)-1 1AppellantThrough: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus VAIBHAVJAIPURIA RespondentThrough: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER%30.05.2017CM 16884/2017 (exemption^in ITA 349/2017 ITA 349/2017 349/2017CM 16886/2017 (exemption)in ITA 350/2017CM 16888/2017 (exemption)in ITA 352/2017CM 16891/2017 (exemption)in ITA 353/20171.Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. in ITA 349/2017 ITA 349/2017 349/2017 ITA 349/2017, ITA 350/2017,ITA 351/2017.353/2017 ITA 352/2017.ITA 2. There is one common questionarose in these appeals which have beenpreferredby the Revenue againstthe common order dated 17"' November,2016inITANos.6109/Del./2015, 6110/Del./2015, 6111/Del./2015,ITA 349/2017&ConnectedMattersPage2of4 6112/Del./2015,6289/Del/2015and 5291/Del/2015for AssessmentYear(AY) 2011-12. 3. This common question relates to the additions made by the AssessingOfficer ('AO') in respect of assessment of each of the Respondents/Assessees who are members of the family of Mr S.K. Jaipuria (who is thehead of thefamily)on accountof 'unaccountedsharepurchase'. 4. The attempt of the Revenue is to demonstrate that the shares of M/sIntegrated Caps Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) were in fact purchased by each of theAssessees @ Rs.0.01 per share. The Revenue based its case on two sets ofdocuments.The second set of documents showed that the shares were in factpurchased by M/s Windsor Durobuild Pvt. Ltd ('WDPL'). However thesedocuments were not examined either by the AO or the Commissioner,Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. 5. The ITAT has in the impugned order categorically held that theshareholdersregistermaintainedby ICPL as well as the returns filed by itwith the Registrar of Companies showed that the shares were in facttransferred to WDPL and not to any of the individual Assessees. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to show that the abovefactual finding of the ITAT is pen^erse. The Court, therefore, declines toframe any substantial question of law on this issue. 7. As regardsMr. S.K. Jaipuriatwo more issues are urged by the Revenue.One relates to Annexure-A9which was seized from his premises whichITA 349/2017 & Connected Matters accordingto the Revenueshowsthe receiptofasum ofRs.7.50lakhsfrom acontractor,Mr RakeshThakur, for installationof kiosks at SunshinePlaza,Indirapuram.Addingup the figuresappearingin the saiddocument,the AOsoughtto add Rs.34.75lacs to the incomeofMr Jaipuria. 8. The CIT(A) reversed the findings of the AO on this aspect. In thestatementrecordedunderSection132(4)ofthe Act the Assesseepointedoutthat this was not an amount paid to him in his individualcapacitybut theofwhich he was Directorand which is aassessed.ThecompanyseparatelyCIT (A) heldthatwas no documenthad beenplacedon recordby the AO toshow that the said sum was in fact receivedby the Assessee.This factualfindinghas been affirmedby the ITAT. Sincethere are concurrentfindingsoffacts againstthe Revenueand in favourofthe Assessee,the Court is notinclinedto frame any substantialquestionoflaw inthis regard. 8. The CIT(A) reversed the findings of the AO on this aspect. In thestatementrecordedunderSection132(4)ofthe Act the Assesseepointedoutthat this was not an amount paid to him in his individualcapacitybut theofwhich he was Directorand which is aassessed.ThecompanyseparatelyCIT (A) heldthatwas no documenthad beenplacedon recordby the AO toshow that the said sum was in fact receivedby the Assessee.This factualfindinghas been affirmedby the ITAT. Sincethere are concurrentfindingsoffacts againstthe Revenueand in favourofthe Assessee,the Court is notinclinedto frame any substantialquestionoflaw inthis regard. 9. The third issue is about the alleged unexplainedpayment in cash as aresult of the family settlementamongst Mr. Chander Kant Jaipuria, Mr.SuryaKantJaipuriaand R.K. Jaipuria.Hereagain,the iTAThas deletedtheadditionson accountofthe chequesnot havingbeen encashedand the sharesnot beingtransferred.Therefore,no substantialquestionoflaw arises fromthis issueas well. The appealsare accordinglydismissed. S.MURALIDHAR,J MAY 30, 2017/rrf ITA349/2017&ConnectedMatters )Qchand^;r shekhar,j 'tof4