COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MOD IMPEX INDIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 873/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ?.. Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate . versus . MOD IMPEX INDIA ?.. Respondent Through None . CORAM: HON?BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 16.07.2010 In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ?Act?) the Revenue has called in question the legal tenability of the order dated 22nd May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ?tribunal?) in ITA No. 3761/Del/08. We have heard Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for Revenue on the question of admission. . ITA 873/2010 Page 1 of 3 . The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether the CIT(A) being approached by the assessee has appositely addressed itself with regard to the transactions placed by the assessee. The tribunal upon consideration of the submissions raised by the department as well as the assessee came to hold that CIT(A) on the basis of material brought on record has opined that the assessing officer had made addition on account of entire purchases made from three parties namely, M/s. Bhavani Das Sons, M/s. Murugan Export and M/s. Preet Textiles, on the ground that summons could not be served, but that will not make a case for disallowance. The tribunal in paragraph 6 of the order has held thus: ?6. From the above, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue on the reasonable basis because he has found that assessee has brought all relevant details and evidences before him including confirmation of accounts statement, copy of the ledger account copies of bills of these parties and copies of all cheques issued to these parties which have been placed on record. The assessee has also furnished copy of bank account with Canara Bank which shows that cheques have been duly debited against the name of the respective parties. It is also noted by Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has also furnished evidence to show that these cheques have been cleared in the respective bank accounts of the parties and hence the identity of the parties and genuineness of the transaction has been clearly established by the assessee. Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in this order of Ld. CIT(A) and hence we uphold the same.? . . . . ITA 873/2010 Page 2 of 3 . In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case no substantial question of law is involved. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J JULY 16, 2010 rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 873/2010 Page 3 of 3 . #15 . . .