Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vipin Gupta on 11 May, 2011
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA No.581 of 2011
% Judgment delivered on: May 11, 2011
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT
Through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing
Counsel..
VERSUS
VIPIN GUPTA . . .RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Kanan Kapur, Advocate
with respondent.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral)
1. Having regard to the nature of order we propose to pass,
that too with consent of both the parties, it is not necessary to
spell out the contour of controversy in detail. Our purpose would
be served by taking note of the background facts in brief touching
upon the issue involved.
2. On the basis of certain documents retrieved from the
premises of the Fena Ltd. whose premises was searched, the
assessee herein was served with reassessment notice under
Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') for the assessment year 1995-96. Reassessment order was
passed on 27th March, 2001 making additions on three counts.
However, in the present proceedings we are concerned with only
one addition, which is the subject matter of appeal preferred by
the Revenue. It pertains to difference of gross receipts in the sum
of ` 43,23,457/-. It was found by the Assessing Officer that in the
Bank account of the assessee, total credit entries amounted to
the sum of ` 61,66,599/- but the assessee had only shown `
18,43,142/- in the profit and loss account. The difference between
the amount deposited in the bank account and shown in the profit
and loss account was calculated @ ` 43,23,457 (` 61,66,599
minus ` 18,43,142/-) and the same was added as undisclosed
income. In the appeal, the submission of the assessee was that it
had received the aforesaid on account of telecast charges from
SACI Allied Products Ltd. According to the assessee the total
cheques deposited in the bank were ` 69,61,599/-out of which
cheques worth ` 16,35,000/- were returned back and thus leaving
` 53,26,599/- in the account. Further, these receipts included the
amount of ` 11,98,350/- received on account of wall painting. The
assessee had also spent a sum of ` 26,88,450/- on cycle rickshaw
publicity & video van publicity as well as banners and, therefore,
net amount was taken to the profit and loss account. The CIT (A)
accepted this explanation and deleted the addition, inter alia,
observing that the net income had been taken @ 15% at the
receipt. The Tribunal has upheld the same.
3. The neat submission made by the learned counsel for the
Revenue is that the purported expenditure of ` 26,88,450/- on
account of cycle rickshaw publicity & video van publicity as well
as banners etc. is accepted without any proof thereof. On this
basis, the submission of Mr. Sahni is that the matter warrants to
be remitted back to the AO.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are in
agreement with this submission of Mr. Sahni. It is not necessary to
spell out the reasons as learned counsel for the assessee has also
accepted this course of action. Accordingly, the matter is remitted
back to the AO who shall verify the records of the assessee and go
into the veracity of expenditure of ` 26,88,450/- claimed by the
assessee and thereafter pass afresh order on the basis of evidence
produced by the assessee.
5. The present appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(V.K.JAIN)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2011
skb
