CIT vs. TCL PROPERTIES P LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 1440/2010 . CIT ..... Appellant Through Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Standing Counsel. . versus . TCL PROPERTIES P LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Advocate . . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . . O R D E R 23.09.2010 . Heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned standing counsel for revenue and Mr. Anand Aggarwal, learned counsel for assessee. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?H?, New Delhi (for short ?tribunal?) in ITA No. 1478/Del/2007 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2002-2003. . ITA 1440/2010 Page 1 of 3 . . . The revenue in the memo of appeal has sought to raise the following substantial questions of law :- i) Whether the tribunal was correct in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ?CTT(A)?] in deleting the addition of ` 5,12,458/- on account of undisclosed income? ii) Whether the tribunal was correct in law in upholding the orders of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ` 15,64,055/- on account of receipt against Land Development made by the Assessing Officer? iii) Whether the order of the tribunal was perverse in law? . On a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, it is evincible that all questions are interlinked inasmuch as the Assessing Officer has formed the opinion that the assessee has received a sum of `28,72,458/- from M/s. Raghav Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) in the appeal deleted the addition and accepted the claim put forth by the assessee on the ground that the accounts between M/s. Raghav Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and assessee tallied; . ITA 1440/2010 Page 3 of 3 . that the TDS certificate issued by M/s. Raghav Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. also showed ` 23,60,000/-; that the breakup of the expenses shown by the assessee as well as the other company are in accord with the books of accounts; that first appellate authority has scrutinised the books of accounts and material brought on record; and the Assessing Officer has misconstrued the whole concept and added the amount. The tribunal has opined that the assessee has not received any amount that has not been shown in the books of account. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but with no order as to costs. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 rn . . . . ITA 1440/2010 Page 3 of 3 . #9