IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
         ITA 463/2010  
 . 
 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III                       ..... Appellant 
 Through: Ms Rashmi Chopra 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 SUNTECH VISION LTD.                                                  ..... 
 Respondent 
 Through: None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                                    05.04.2010 
 CM 3941/2010 (Delay application) 
 For the reasons stated in the application and on the basis of the 
 submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the appellant, the delay in re- 
 filing the appeal is condoned. 
 ITA 463/2010 
 This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Income-tax 
 Appellate Tribunal dated 15.12.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2004-05 
 arising out of ITA No.3511/Del/2007.  The point in issue is with regard to 
 investments of about Rs 49 lakhs made by four companies in the assessee company. 
 The said amount of Rs 49 lakhs was received by way of share application money. 
 The Assessing Officer held the same to be unexplained income of the assessee 
 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  However, in appeal, the 
 Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee and allowed 
 the assessee?s appeal by holding that the assessee had produced the pan numbers, 
 confirmatory letters, returns of income, etc. in respect of the parties who had 
 made the said investments.  Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 
 had come to the conclusion that the preliminary onus, which was upon the 
 assessee, had been discharged by him.  Consequently, the addition made by the 
 Assessing Officer stood deleted. 
 The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by the revenue, 
 confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and found 
 that the said share application money was substantiated by the assessee by 
 providing all the necessary details as indicated above.  The two authorities 
 below, on findings of fact, held that the assessee was not liable to any 
 addition on account of the said share application money.  We see no reason to 
 interfere with the said findings. 
 No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.  The appeal is 
 dismissed. 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 V.K. JAIN, J 
 APRIL 05, 2010 
 dutt 
 . 
 . 
 1