THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.04.2010
+ ITA 1239/2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
versus
INTEX TECHNOLOGY INDIA LTD ..... Respondent
AND
+ ITA 1245/2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ….. Appellant
versus
NARENDER BANSAL ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Appellant : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal For the Respondent : Mr Amol Sinha CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 16767/2009 & 16772/2009
We have heard the counsel for the parties. The delay is
condoned.
These applications stand disposed of.
ITA 1239/2009 & ITA 1245/2009
1. These two appeals preferred by the revenue arise out of the
common order dated 21.011.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
ITA Nos.1239/2009 & 1245/2009 Page No.1 of 3
Tribunal passed in respect of the block period 01.04.1990 to 25.05.2000 and
arise out of IT (SS) A No. 209/Del/2003 and IT (SS) A No. 211/Del/2003.
2. Additions have been made by the Assessing Officer to the extent
of Rs 83,94,000/-. The said additions were made by the Assessing Officer
to the disclosed income of one of the directors, namely, Mr Narender Bansal
on substantive basis in the block assessment completed under Section
158 BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said
Act’) by the Assessing Officer’s order dated 31.05.2002. The said amount
was also added by the Assessing Officer to the disclosed income of the
other assessee (Intex Technology India Ltd) on protective basis in the
assessment completed in respect of the very same block under Section 158
BC of the said Act.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the
additions. The addition of Rs 83,94,000/- comprises of two components.
One component was on account of Rs 79 lacs which was received by the
company Intex Technology India Ltd as share application money and the
other was of an amount of Rs 4,64,000/- on account of commission
allegedly paid to one Mr Dinesh Kumar Sharma for allegedly obtaining
accommodation entries as a corollary to the said share application money.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as noted above,
deleted the said additions. Being aggrieved, the revenue preferred appeals
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that only
one issue was involved in both the appeals relating to the addition made
under Section 68 on account of cash credit representing share capital after
ITA Nos.1239/2009 & 1245/2009 Page No.2 of 3
the same was treated as unexplained. However, according to the Tribunal,
the issue stood covered in favour of the assessee in view of the Supreme
Court decision in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Private Limited: 216
CTR 195, where it has been held that if the share application money is
received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose
names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to
proceed against the said shareholders in accordance with law. The Tribunal
held that the amount of share capital received by the assessee cannot be
regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee particularly when the
identity and the creditworthiness of the applicants have been established.
There is a finding in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) that all the 16 parties, who had applied for the shares and had
made the payments towards share capital, had been summoned by the
Assessing Officer and that the said parties had confirmed their identify,
creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of the said transactions.
5. In view of the findings of fact, the Tribunal has arrived at the
correct conclusion. We are of the view that no substantial question of law
arises for our consideration.
The appeals are dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 28, 2010
SR
ITA Nos.1239/2009 & 1245/2009 Page No.3 of 3