COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. VATIKA LANDBASE PVT LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 104/2013 . . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I ..... Appellant . Through : Mr Sanjeev Rajpal . . . versus . . . VATIKA LANDBASE PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through : Mr Prakash Kumar . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 25.02.2013 . . . This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 1289/Del/2012 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer has made an enhancement of income of ` 29,12,448/- under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the said assessment year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted the said enhancement. The revenue went up in appeal before the Tribunal and the ground taken by the revenue was as under:- . ?On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the enhancement of income of ` 29,12,448/- made by the AO by passing on order under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee had failed to reconcile the claim of TDS and income as per TDS certificates.? . . . . The Tribunal concurred with the views taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the following manner:- . ?7. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee successfully demonstrated that out of income shown in the profit and loss account under the head of other income, . . . the income of Rs.99,93,995 related to commission received and other miscellaneous income. He also observed that the assessee also explained that out of such income of Rs.99,93,995/-, tax was deducted only on income of Rs.77,27,623 and no tax was deducted at source on the remaining amount already disclosed as income by the appellant and appellant had disclosed more amounts as income than income as per relevant TDS certificates. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) finally observed that the Assessing Officer failed to confront the assessee for rebuttal and passed the order without even bringing to the notice of the assessee as to which of the income was covered under tax deducted at source certificate and which part of the income remained undisclosed. Therefore, we hold that the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) are based on justified and reasonable grounds and we are unable to see any infirmity or mistake in the impugned order.? . . . The findings are purely factual. No question of law, what to speak of a substantial question of law, arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . FEBRUARY 25, 2013 . SR . . . $ 7 .