CIT vs. RPK BUILDERS PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. ITA 1299/2010 . CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advs. versus . RPK BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: None . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 07.09.2010 . Heard Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue-appellant. In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the assail is to the order dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ?the tribunal?) in ITA No.2048/Del/2008 pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. The singular question that arose before the CIT(A) as well as before the tribunal was whether the addition of Rs.28,42,000/- by the assessing officer on the ground that the said amount was in the realm of unexplained expenditure was correct or not. Both the authorities, after referring to the facts in entirety, have accepted the plea of the assessee. It is noticeable that the assessee has purchased agricultural land from one Jagdish Kumar. The sale price was stated to be Rs.90,24,000/-. The sale deed was executed on a recorded consideration of Rs.61,82,000/- and the differential sum was shown as expenditure incurred for leveling of land, filling of mud and other incidental expenses. It is worth noting, the assessing officer called for the details and the assessee submitted an affidavit from Jagdish Kumar who confirmed that he had received the payment of Rs.90,24,000/- on different components. The assessing officer did not give credence to the same and disallowed the expenditure. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had recorded in his books of account the whole consideration of sum on two different dates. That apart, the amount was paid through account payee . . cheques and was fully verifiable from the record and was confirmed by the seller. It has also been noted by the CIT(A) that the payment was made to the seller as per the total agreed cost and, therefore, the same should have been accepted. The CIT(A) as well as the tribunal treated the whole sum as the cost of acquisition and accordingly came to hold that the disallowance made under Section 69C of the Act was incorrect. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue-appellant submitted that there was no evidence that the whole amount was paid to Jagdish Kumar for the said purpose. In our considered opinion, the said submission does not deserve any acceptation inasmuch as the amount was paid to Jagdish Kumar from whom the property was purchased and was developed. The amount was paid by account payee cheques and was reflected in the books of account. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and, accordingly, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed in limine. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 pk . . .