High CourtsDivision Bench(2007) 03 DEL CK 0174

Commissioner of Income Tax vs A and A Bakery P. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 12 March 2007 · Citation: (2008) 302 ITR 51

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vidya Bhushan Gupta, J · Madan B. Lokur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax A. No. 749 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 322 words
1.

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated February 21, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D" in I. T. A. No. 2667/Del/2001 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.

2.

Mother Dairy, a subsidiary of M/s National Dairy Development Board, which is a Government of India undertaking raised a bill which was paid by the assessed by means of an account payee cheque.

3.

The Assessing Officer required the assessed to prove that the payment was made for services rendered by Mother Dairy. The claim of the assessed was that Mother Dairy is a Government company and a transaction with a Government company is presumed to be above board and since the payment was made by cheque, the assessed had discharged its onus. This contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the view placed by the assessed and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and that is how the matter is before us.

4.

We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal as well as other orders passed by the statutory authorities. We find that there can be no doubt that Mother Dairy is a Government organisation and the payment was made by cheque. There is nothing to indicate that Mother Dairy raised an unreasonable bill or that there was some fraud involved. In fact, the Tribunal has noted that if there was some doubt and the Assessing Officer wanted to make further enquiries, he should have checked up with Mother Dairy but he did not bother to do so. We are of the view that on the given facts, the assessed has clearly discharged the onus placed upon it and there was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.

5.

Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

6.

Dismissed.