Delhi High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 vs Satkar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. on 10 October, 2022
$~95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 386/2022 & CM APPLs.43641-43642/2022
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. Adeeba
Mujahid, Advocates for Revenue
versus
SATKAR INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None
% Date of Decision: 10th October, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
25th November, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
('ITAT') in ITA No. 1198/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred in
deleting the additions of Rs.10,15,00,000/- which was made by the
Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short
'Act') on account of unexplained share premium and share capital since the
essential ingredients of Section 68 such as identity & credit worthiness of
the shareholders and genuineness of the transaction were not established by
the Assessee.
3. He further states that the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions of
Rs.10,15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:11.10.2022
17:29:00
Act, while ignoring the fact that during the assessment proceedings the
Assessee had failed to produce controlling persons of share applicant
companies along with supportive documentary evidence for examination
and field enquiries in respect of share applicant companies revealed that
such companies never existed on given addresses.
4. He states that the ITAT has also erred in holding that since this is the
first year of operation of the Assessee it can't be said that the Assessee has
brought its unaccounted funds through these investor companies as bogus
share capital or share premium. He further contends that the ITAT has
ignored the fact that in its first year there could have been no valid reason
for the said investors to pay such high amount of premiums.
5. However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that both the appellate
authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that as many as
eight out of nineteen investor companies were assessed under Section 143(3)
of the Act in the same Assessment Year and the concerned Assessing
Officers had verified their investments while calculating the disallowance
under Section 14A on the basis of 0.5% of the average investments. The
appellate authorities below have also recorded that the entire amount had
been received by the assessee company by account payee cheques or
demand drafts and that nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue
that these orders under Section 143(3) passed by the investor companies are
subject to proceedings under Section 147 or Section 263 of the Act.
6. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the factual finding of
the appellate authorities below that the identity, credit worthiness and
genuineness of the transaction could not be doubted and that it cannot be
said that the Assessee company had brought in its own unaccounted funds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:11.10.2022
17:29:00
through these investor companies as bogus share capital or share premium.
7. The Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the jurisdiction of the High
Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to
hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of
fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the
Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited &
Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law
in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by
both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs.
Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that "in a case where from a
given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn
by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in
second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible." It has also
been held that there is a difference between a question of law and a
"substantial question of law".
8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of
law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present
appeal along with applications is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
OCTOBER 10, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:11.10.2022
17:29:00
