IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 288/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SHARMILEE FURNISHING PVT LTD    ..... Respondent 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      14.05.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 C.M. No. 7804/2012 (Delay) 
 . 
 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 73 days in re- 
 filing the appeal. It is stated that the counsel for the Revenue had 
 undergone a surgery and, therefore, the appeal could not be re-filed 
 within time. 
 . 
 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 73 days in 
 re-filing the appeal is condoned. 
 . 
 3. C.M. stands disposed of. 
 . 
 ITA No. 288/2012 
 . 
 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Income 
 Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) have given concurrent findings 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 288/2012            page 1 of 3 
 . 
 as far as payment to Smt. Sharmille Chopra and Sh. Gaurav Chopra are 
 concerned, the same was by way of account payee instruments.  There is 
 nothing on record to controvert or deny the said finding except for the 
 reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the audit report. The Revenue 
 can rely upon the audit report, but once the assessee had produced 
 necessary documents and statements of bank of accounts to establish and 
 state that the transactions were through crossed bank instruments then 
 reliance on the audit report alone would be futile.  The factual position 
 has to be examined and then it has to be decided, whether or not there 
 were violations of Section 271E read with Section 269SS/269T.  We may 
 also note that penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment 
 proceedings. It is not averred or stated that the statement of bank 
 account is wrong or false. 
 . 
 2.  With regard to the payment to the partnership firm M/s Electric 
 Living it has been held by the CIT(A) and ITAT that Sharmille Chopra and 
 Gaurav Chopra were partners to the said firm, which stands dissolved. 
 . 
 Book entries were made with reference to the amount standing to the credit of the partners.  Payments were made by four crossed cheques to 
 discharge the liability of Gaurav Chopra. The said factual findings are 
 not denied. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 288/2012            page 2 of 3 
 . 
 3. As the factual findings recorded by the ITAT are correct and have 
 not been controverted, we do not find any reason to entertain the present 
 appeal.  The same is dismissed in liminie. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 MAY 14, 2012/AK 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 288/2012            page 3 of 3 
 . 
 $ 4 
 .