Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 22.02.2011 . . . Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Navneet Pawan, Advocates for the appellant. None for the respondent. . + ITA No. 325/2011 . The issue raised in this appeal is as to whether the deletion by ITAT of the sum of `592.55 on account of lease rental were allowable. After going through the order passed by the Tribunal, which has confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) we find that the Tribunal had gone into all those cases before him. Same is clear from the following discussions:- ?6. We have heard both the counsels and perused the records. It transpires that the assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer that in the original assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has not called for any lease agreements executed between the assessee and the ICICI Ltd. However, during the reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer has himself admitted that assessee has submitted more copies of agreements between it and M/s ICICI Ltd. Now Assessing Officer has not given any finding that there is any discrepancy between the amount of lease rental payable as per the agreements and that has reflected in that account. Without any specific basis whatsoever, merely by referring to the reasons for the reopening Assessing Officer went on to disallow the sum of Rs.592.55 lacs. In this regard, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly noted that when all the agreements were before the Assessing Officer, there was no justification on the part of the Assessing Officer to make any disallowance without giving any finding of discrepancy in this regard. In this regard, detail of lease rental allowed by the department is reproduced below:- . . ITA No. 325/2011 page 1 of 2 . A.Y. Amount of lease rental 1998-99 2196252 2000-01 2986892 2002-03 141319521 2003-04 190232753 2004-05 189457088 2005-06 188811575 2006-07 99899380 . 7. The above does not reflect any abnormality in the amount of Rs.826.36 lacs paid for the impugned assessment years. Moreover without giving any findings of any discrepancy observed between the lease rental payable, as per the agreement and that shown in the account, no disallowance is sustainable. It is not the case that any amount has actually not being paid or is of a bogus nature. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). Hence, we uphold the same.? . These are only factual aspects and no question of law arises for consideration. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. FEBRUARY 22, 2011 . . AK . ITA No. 325/2011 page 2 of 2 . . . 07 and 08 #