CIT vs. CHANDRA BUILDCON PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . . . ITA 293/2012 . . . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. . . . versus . . . CHANDRA BUILDCON PVT LTD. ..... Respondent . Through Nemo. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 02.05.2012 . . . The CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal have noticed that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire payment of Rs.2,21,84,500/- on account of wages paid to labour for doing land leveling work. It is not disputed that land leveling work has been done and the same could not have been performed without paying wages. This factum has been adversely commented upon and in our opinion rightly by the CIT(Appeals), who has stated that the Assessing Officer was completely unjustified in not allowing even a single rupeee as expenditure but taxing the incoming or the receipts. The CIT(Appeals) also noticed that the manner in which the Assessing Officer had conducted the proceedings and had after calling for remand report, has passed an order making certain observations. The documents taken on record under Rule 46A and the remand report have not been filed before us. . 2. The Revenue preferred an appeal and after hearing the parties, the tribunal has ultimately given the following directions: . ?4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available . on record. We find merit in the argument of learned counsel. CIT(A), in our view, has not given any relief but sent the additional material for verification of the AO. In view thereof we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is upheld.? . . . 3. In view of the factual position, we do not think that this appeal filed by the Revenue requires and justifies any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V. EASWAR, J. . MAY 02, 2012 . VKR . $ 37. .