Delhi High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Imperial Housing Ventures P. Ltd. on 21 March, 2022
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 55/2022
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
versus
IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through None.
% Date of Decision: 21st March, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26th August,
2020 passed by ITAT in ITA No. 6448/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year
2011-12.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that ITAT has erred in
upholding the decision passed by CIT(A), whereby it has deleted the
addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.7,17,95,500/- as
'unexplained expenditure' in complete disregard of the system of accounting
and the applicable accounting standards.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:22.03.2022
21:08:54
3. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that in the questions
of law framed by appellant the emphasis is on the factum that the entities
from whom the purchases had been shown to have been made by the
respondent-assessee were bogus and non-existent, on the ground that such
entities were not found existing during the search and post search
proceeding.
4. However, both, CIT(A) as well as ITAT, have given concurrent
findings of fact that purchases made by the respondent-assessee were
genuine and the Assessing Officer had neither doubted the receipt of goods
by the appellant nor the payment made for the same through banking
channels. The relevant portion of the findings of CIT(A) is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"8....In the situation when the goods allegedly purchased have
been admittedly delivered to the purchaser that is the appellant
and payment made thereof through banking channels, the non-
availability/tracability of the sellers cannot lead to the
conclusion that impugned purchases had not been made at all.
When the goods in question have been received at site, obviously,
there would be a supplier. The onus on the appellant with
reference to the purchases debited in P&L a/c is to ensure that
the payment in question is made for goods purchased and the
same has been established as detailed above. The AO has neither
doubted the receipt of goods by the appellant nor the payment
made for the same through banking channels. The mere fact that
the impugned sellers could not be available at the given
addresses is not sufficient basis to disallow the impugned
purchases as unexplained u/s 69C. It is also important to
appreciate here that the appellant group of cases had been
subjected to search operation on 09.09.2010 i.e. the same
financial year in which the impugned payments had been made
for the said purchases. The search proceedings have not led to
discovery of any evidence either in the form of incriminating
documents of unaccounted assets to evidence the possibility of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:22.03.2022
21:08:54
receipt of payments made for purchase in the form of cash. It
only means that a casual presumption, especially in the present
case' where search has taken place, cannot be made with regard
to the impugned purchases being bogus as the goods in question
have been received at the site and payments thereof have been
made in account payee cheques and no evidence of amount of
said purchases being received in cash has been found. In the
circumstances, the action of the AO in making the impugned
addition u/s 69C could only be termed as on the basis of
conjectures and surmises......"
(emphasis supplied)
5. The ITAT in the impugned order has also held as under:-
"....Thus, there is a clear finding that purchases were actually
made and the same was not disputed by the Revenue Authorities
at any point of time. From the perusal of the assessment order,
these purchases were reflected in subsequent Assessment Year
i.e. 2012-13, the purchases were shown by the assessee in
subsequent year. In fact, during the search no incriminating
documents were found. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the
basis of mere assumption that purchases were bogus despite
knowing the fact that the purchases were reflected in the books of
accounts for A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee established before the
Assessing Officer that the purchases were genuine and the
Assessing Officer has also accepted the same, therefore, Section
69C will not be applicable in the present case for making such
additions. Hence, the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition.
Thus, appeal filed by Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed.
8. As regards Assessment Year 2012-13, since the assessee has
shown the purchases and the quantification is based on the
evidences/documents placed on record. The CIT(A) was right in
deleting the protective assessment as in both the years, the
purchases cannot be held unexplained u/s 69C in light of the
observations made hereinabove para while giving finding to A.Y.
2011-12 by us. Thus, the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 is
dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:22.03.2022
21:08:54
6. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact, this Court is of
the opinion that no question of law arises for consideration in the present
appeal and the same is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
MARCH 21, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:22.03.2022
21:08:54
