Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Kishore Apparels
2010 Latest Caselaw 3998 Del

                                                                                     #12
$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       ITA 1260/2010
COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX                                      ..... Appellant
                                 Through:       Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal,
                                                Advocate

                        versus

M/S. KISHORE APPARELS                           ..... Respondent

                  Through:                      None


%                                        Date of Decision: 30th August, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

MANMOHAN, J:

CM 15149/2010

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the

appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

ITA 1260/2010

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961")

challenging the order dated 8th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "Tribunal") in ITA No. 4018/Del/2007

for the Assessment Year 2003-2004.

2. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue

submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition of

` 90,00,105/- on account of unverifiable purchases under Section 69 of

Act, 1961 and addition of ` 90,32,014/- on account of unexplained

expenses under Section 68 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer.

3. Ms. Bansal pointed out that the assessee did not even file the

PAN detail and complete address of the parties. She submitted that the

onus lay on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the parties from

whom purchases had been made and on whom expenditure had been

incurred.

4. However, upon a perusal of the paper book, we find that both the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short "CIT(A)"] and

Tribunal have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In

fact, the assessee had purchased raw material and also got the job work

done from the same parties in both earlier and subsequent assessment

years. The Assessing Officer in the subsequent Assessment Year of

2004-05 has accepted all these parties and transactions as genuine.

Moreover, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal have found that payments had

been made to these parties through banking channels and tax had been

deducted at source on the payments made towards job work charges.

5. Accordingly, in our opinion, the view expressed by the Tribunal

is both fair and reasonable. Moreover, no substantial question of law

arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed

in limine.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 30, 2010 rn