The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 628/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai & Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. versus HI-TECH RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R 07.07.2017 % 1.This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order dated 18[th]December, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.4707/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10. 2. While admitting the appeal on 18[th] December, 2016, the following questions were framed: (1) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,30,00,000 under Section 68 where assessee was not able to produce any of the Director, Shareholders or Principal Officer of the companies to which shares were allotted? in deleting the addition of Rs 1,30,00,000 under Section 68 where assessee was not able to produce any of the Director, Shareholders or Principal Officer of the companies to which shares were allotted? Page 1 of 3 ITA 628/2016 (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) by reducing the addition under Section 68 to Rs 5,01,000 on account of receipt of Unsecured loans of Rs. 1,00,01,000? (3) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 15,00,000 under Section 68 received as earnest money without any evidence of agreement? 3. The Court has been taken through the order of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] and ITAT. 4. The Court finds that the exercise for determining the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors of the share capital of the Assessee as well as lenders was undertaken in an elaborate manner by the CIT(A). Comments from the AO were sought. Detailed reasons have been given by the CIT(A) to come to the conclusion that the Assessee had discharged its onus of establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both the investors as well as the lenders. This has been concurred with by the ITAT in the impugned order which is again an extremely detailed one. 5. The concurrent factual findings of both the CIT(A) and ITAT have not been shown to be perverse by the Appellant. This is virtually the fourth stage of the litigation. 6. Question (1) is accordingly answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Question (2) is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Question (3) is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 07, 2017 b’nesh PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J Page 3 of 3