IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 437/2013  
 . 
 S.K. EMBROIDERY PVT. LTD.    ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through:  Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III   ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through:  Mr.Amol Sinha, Advocate 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    24.09.2013 
 . 
 CM No.14057/2013 (for exemption) 
 . 
 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 
 . 
 CM No. 14058/2013 (for condonation of delay) 
 . 
 There is delay of 56 days in re-filing of the appeal. 
 . 
 It is stated that the appeal was filed within time but was returned 
 under office objections.  Refiling took time as copy of the order of the 
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had got misplaced. 
 . 
 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing 
 the appeal is condoned. 
 . 
 The application stands disposed of. 
 . 
 ITA 437/2013 
 . 
 Appellant assessee has preferred this appeal relating to assessment 
 year 2000-01 impugning the order of the Tribunal on two grounds. 
 Firstly, the conditions for initiation of re-assessment proceedings were 
 not satisfied and secondly, addition of Rs.13.5 lacs made by invoking 
 Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified on facts and in 
 law. 
 . 
 On the first contention, it is suffice to notice that this 
 contention was not pressed during arguments.  There is a good ground for 
 not pressing the said contention. The appellant was not subjected to 
 regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the return income 
 was processed under Section 143(1).  Subsequently, information was 
 . 
 received from the Investigating Wing that the appellant was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Teem Metals P. Ltd. 
 and Changia Steels P. Ltd. 
 . 
 It is a matter of record that the appellant did received cheques of 
 Rs.5 lacs and Rs.6 lacs dated 16.3.2000 and  24.3.2000 respectively, from 
 Teem Metals Private Limited and a cheque of Rs.2.50 lacs from Changia 
 Steels Private Limited dated 25.3.2000.  The said cheques were duly 
 encashed. 
 . 
 On the question of merits, we find that the Tribunal has recorded 
 several findings of fact.  The Tribunal has noticed that the appellant 
 herein accepts that they had received Rs.13.50 lacs as stated above but 
 no entry was passed in the books of accounts inspite of encashment of the 
 cheques. The stand taken by the appellant was that this payment of 
 Rs.13.50 lacs was refund by issue of cheques of Rs.6 lacs, 5 lacs and 2.5 
 lacs dated 28.3.2000, 31.3.2000 and 30.3.2000 respectively.  Thus, as per 
 the appellant, the entries were squared up during the financial year 
 itself, and therefore not reflected in the balance sheet etc.  However, 
 it is noticed that the said cheques were encashed by the parties after a 
 substantial time of about one year on 21.3.2001, 26.3.2001 and 5.10.2001, 
 respectively.  Thus the Tribunal came to the conclusion that substantial 
 amount of money remained in the books of the company for a period of one 
 year.  The appellant had squared up the entry to show as if there was no 
 transaction but, in fact, the money remained with the company.  Regarding 
 refund also no entry was made in the books. Learned counsel for the 
 appellant could not explain how the cheques issued could be encashed 
 after one year. The delay in encashment is not explained.  It was further 
 noticed that the claim of the assessee appellant was that the said money 
 was received as share application money.  However, no application forms 
 were furnished.  There was no written agreement between the parties. 
 There were no trading transactions between the parties.  Assessee could 
 not produce any confirmation letter from Teem Metals Private Limited and 
 Changia Steels Private Limited.  The appellant is a limited company and 
 before entering into any transactions with third persons of such nature, 
 they and the appellant would and should have taken necessary precaution 
 and ascertained the nature, goodwill and business aptitude of the parties 
 concerned. 
 . 
 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we do not think the order of 
 the Tribunal requires interference. 
 . 
 The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 24, 2013/sv 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 6 
 .