IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
.
ITA 213/2013
.
NEW ERA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD. ..... Appellant
.
Through Mr Satyen Sethi and Mr Arta Trana Panda, Advs.
.
.
.
versus
.
.
.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V and ANR.
.
..... Respondents
.
Through
.
CORAM:
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
.
.
.
O R D E R
.
10.04.2013
.
.
.
This appeal has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the
order dated 12.10.2012 in ITA No.2081/Del/2010 pertaining to the
assessment year 2006-07.
.
2. The assessing officer had made an addition of `15 lakhs under
Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the hands of the assessee. The
assessee had shown this amount of `15 lakhs as share application money
received from two entities ? Ganga Infin Pvt. Ltd. (`7 lakhs) and Kuber
Company Sales Pvt. Ltd. (`8 lakhs). The assessee?s appeal was allowed by
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the said addition of `15
lakhs was deleted. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal
which has allowed the revenue?s appeal and has restored the addition made
by the assessing officer.
.
The main point that has been accepted by the Tribunal is that
assessee had not been able to discharge the burden of proving the
identity, genuineness as also credit worthiness of the said parties. The
Tribunal also noted that two sets of affidavits had been filed by so-
called Directors of the said entities. In the first set the said amounts
were shown as unsecured loans whereas in the second set the same were
shown as share application money. This in itself shows that the position
was far from being clear and the burden which was cast upon the assessee
had not been discharged by it. The Tribunal has found, on facts, that
the said addition was sustainable. We see no reason to interfere as no
substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
.
The appeal is dismissed.
.
.
.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
.
.
.
.
.
R.V.EASWAR, J
.
APRIL 10, 2013
.
vld
.
.
.
$ 18 and 19
.