The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana v. M/S Dp Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
1 ITA Nos. 41-2024 and 45-2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 11.07.2024
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .....Appellant.
versus M/s DP Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
.....Respondent
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .....Appellant.
versus M/s Silverline Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
.....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL, JUDGE Present :
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant.
**** CM No. 5580-CII of 2024 in ITA No. 41 of 2024 and CM No. 5677-CII of 2024 in ITA No. 45 of 2024 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 77 days and 63 days in filing the appeals is condoned. Both the applications stand disposed of.
ITA Nos. 41 of 2024 and 45 of 2024 2.
Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from ITA No. 41 of 2024.
2 ITA Nos. 41-2024 and 45-2024 (O&M)
3. The appellant through the instant appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '1961 Act') is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.04.2023 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for short 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 206/ASR/2022 for the Assessment year 2012-13.
4.
The respondents-assessees received a sum of Rs.3.5 crores from Gurdip Singh Bath during the assessment year 2012-13 as unsecured loan. The Assessing Officer made re-assessment under Section 153-A of 1961 Act whereby he made addition of aforesaid loan in the returned income of the respondent-Asssessee. The demand/addition was made on the ground that the aforesaid loan is an undisclosed income and the respondents-assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount. The Assessing Officer of Gurdip Singh Bath framed his assessment wherein no objection with respect to the money advanced by him was raised. Despite acceptance of financial activities of Gurdip Singh Bath, the Assessing Officer made addition of the aforesaid loan amount in the hands of the respondent-assessee.
The matter reached to the Appellate Tribunal because the first Appellate Authority accepted contention of the respondent-assessee and dropped the demand. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 27.04.2023 dropped the proceedings against the respondentassessee. The relevant extracts of the order dated 27.04.
! "#
$% $ &
'()*(*
+ ,- )-.-/
$
3 ITA Nos. 41-2024 and 45-2024 (O&M) % $ 0
0
1
1
'()*(* $ % & 2
*( ,!
1
1
)0 '0,(0(((+!
1
$ % $ & ( ()*( ) 34 ( '-(((,(,*5 (* 67 3
& $ % $ &
# #
0
1
$ % & $ % &
1 8 +
,-
0 1 8+5
$ % $ &
)0 '0,(0(((+!7
9 : 0 1 8
$ % $ &
10
; ' 8
0
'+()+*(* 0
9+ ,- )-.-/
# 0
1
$0
4 ITA Nos. 41-2024 and 45-2024 (O&M)
!
1
5 <
0=% $ & 1
3#
!
1
0
1
0 '! ()!*(* 1
1 7
< 1
10
5.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on being confronted with the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that no adverse order has been passed against Gurdip Singh Bath from whom the respondents-assessees have borrowed the said amount expressed his inability to controvert the findings of the Tribunal. 6.
We do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. We further do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law arising out of impugned order. Thus, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (SHEEL NAGU) (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 11.07.2024 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No