2023 (2) TMI 1432 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee wins: additions under s.68 and s.2(22)(e) deleted; no incriminating material, no substantial question of law

The HC upheld the ITAT's decision allowing the assessee's cross-objections and deleting additions under s.68 (unsecured loans) and s.2(22)(e), finding no ... Addition u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans and addition u/s 2(22)(e) - ITAT ruled against the revenue, and allowed the cross-objections, on the ground that no incriminating material was found against the respondent/assessee. Appellant/revenue, says that the issue raised presently stands covered by the decision of Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In these circumstances, the appeal is closed, as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration Application for condonation of delay (187 days) in refiling the appeal was allowed. The appeal (AY 2008-2009) challenges the Tribunal order dated 02.09.2019, by which the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. The revenue had contested the Commissioner (Appeals) order that deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer: Rs. 15,18,06,000 under Section 68 (unsecured loans) and Rs. 78,05,000 under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal upheld deletion on the ground that 'no incriminating material was found against the respondent/assessee.' The revenue contended the point is covered by the coordinate-bench decision in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-III v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). In view of that precedent, the court held that no substantial question of law arises and closed the appeal.