IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 40/2013  
 . 
 CIT        ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing 
 Counsel with Mr Shashank Singh, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 LIFESTYLE BUILDCON PVT LTD    ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
   13.02.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been 
 filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 13th February, 
 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New 
 Delhi, in ITA No. 3775/Del/2011, pertaining to the assessment year 2006- 
 07.  The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.5.25 crores under 
 Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, treating the said amount as 
 unconfirmed and unsecured. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition. 
 . 
 Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee has made an application on 
 8th September, 2010 under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 and 
 furnished evidence in the form of a copy of the Income Tax 
 acknowledgement as well as the bank account statement of the lender (Mr 
 S.P. Sachdeva).  A remand report on these pieces of evidence was called 
 for from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer submitted his 
 report through a letter dated 25th April, 2011.  In that report, the 
 Assessing Officer noted that the inquiry as conducted in the case 
 revealed that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.5.25 crores from 
 Mr S.P. Sachdeva, through cheque No. 399569 dated 3rd April, 2005 (for 
 . 
 Rs.2 crores) and  cheque No. 399570 dated 30th April, 2005 (for Rs.3.25 crores) drawn on Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi. The remand 
 report also indicated that the lender (Mr S.P. Sachdeva) was also 
 assessed to Income Tax at DCIT Circle 32(1), New Delhi. On the basis of 
 the said remand report, which was in favour of the assessee, the 
 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as mentioned above, deleted the 
 addition of Rs.5.25 crores. 
 . 
 On an appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the 
 said deletion by the CIT (Appeals).  A point was raised before the 
 Tribunal that the assessee had not produced Mr S.P. Sachdeva before the 
 Assessing Officer in order to confirm the said loan of Rs.5.25 crores. 
 However, the Tribunal took the view that the non-production of Mr S.P. 
 Sachdeva would not be detrimental to the case of the assessee inasmuch as 
 the documents on record showed sufficient confirmation of said loan of 
 Rs.5.25 crores.  The Tribunal also held as under:- 
 . 
 ?5.  We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on 
 record. It has not been controverted by AO that assessee filed a request 
 that any further correspondence or inquiry can be made by AO directly 
 from Mr.Sachdeva, the creditor. No notice u/s 133(6) or summons u/s 131 
 was issued by AO asking the creditor to confirm the credit, the way he 
 wanted. It has also not been disputed that the confirmation filed by the 
 assessee contains the particulars of bank transactions together with 
 address, the PAN number of the creditor.  In these circumstances, 
 assessee?s onus was discharged as held by Hon?ble Supreme Court in Lovely 
 Exports (supra). Further evidence furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) 
 cannot technically be called a fresh evidence inasmuch as these details 
 are already mentioned in the confirmation.  Even if it is assumed to be 
 additional evidence, the material was remanded by CIT(A) to AO and his 
 report contains verification of details. No reason are ascribed by AO for 
 non-admission on further details.  In these circumstances, we uphold the 
 order of CIT(A) on admission of additional evidence. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 5.1.  On merits also, the AO has accepted the PAN details and the bank 
 transactions and has not disputed the credit in his report. In view 
 thereof, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the 
 addition.  Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is upheld.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this 
 court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 FEBRUARY  13, 2013 
 . 
 n 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 6 
 .