COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M K TOWERS PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4 ITA 887/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mrs. P.L. Bansal, Adv. . versus . M K TOWERS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 19.07.2010 . In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assail is to the order dated 30th April, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal?) whereby the tribunal has given the stamp of approval to the order passed by the CIT(A) wherein the First Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is worth noting in paragraph 5 of the order impugned the tribunal has held thus:- ?5. At the time of hearing, both the counsels were agreed that identical issue arose before Tribunal in another group companies cases in the case of M/s K.J. Towers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s K.C. Towers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1454 and 1218/Del/2008 dated 30.01.2009 have held as under: . ITA No.887/2010 Page 1 of 3 ?We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. CIT(A) in both the cases has discussed the matter in detail. He has arrived at the finding that the properties were purchased in financial year 1994-95 relevant to assessment year 1995-96. The agricultural lands were not purchased in year under consideration. The properties were registered much earlier to the assessment year 1997-98. It is a well known fact that sale consideration is paid at the time of registration of properties. Since the properties were registered in financial year 1994-95, the entire sale consideration both in cash and in cheques were received at the time of registration and therefore, no addition can be made in assessment year 1997-98. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A).?? . . In course of hearing, we have been apprised by Mr. Satyen Sethi, learned counsel for the assessee that the statement of villagers were not given but some gist was provided to the assessee as a result of which the CIT(A), as is evident from the order reproduced by the Tribunal, the benefit was granted. It is contended by him that in ITA No.1035/2009 on 22nd October, 2009 this Court under similar circumstances had declined to interfere. Mrs. Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the order passed in the said appeal is . . distinguishable inasmuch as the statements were supplied to the assessee. To bolster the said stand she has invited our attention to the written submissions of the assessee. On a perusal of the written submissions, it is clear as crystal that he had made a categorical assertion that the statements were not provided but some ITA No.887/2010 Page 2 of 3 sketchy gist was provided. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the statements are not provided. This Court in ITA No.1035/2009 has expressed the view as follows:- ?The additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in re-assessment proceedings carried out under Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act were based on the statements of certain villagers, who had sold the land in question to the assessee. However, neither the statements of these villagers were supplied to the assessee nor the assessee was given opportunity to cross-examine those villagers. On this ground, CIT(A) quashed the addition of Rs.10,07,05/- made by the AO. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld this order. . In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises and also the fact that the tax effect in this case is only 4,40,782/- , we are not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid orders. This appeal is accordingly dismissed? . . Apart from the above, it is worth noting that before the Tribunal both the parties accepted the order passed in M/s K.J. Towers Pvt. Ltd. and other cases and, therefore, it can be construed that the order was passed on consent. Thus, from both the angles, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal as no substantial question of law is involved and, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . JULY 19, 2010/vk MANMOHAN, J ITA No.887/2010 Page 3 of 3 49