COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. P.S. JAIN COMPANY LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 119/2010 . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms Sonia Mathur . Versus . . . . P.S. JAIN COMPANY LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr B.N. Goswami . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL . . O R D E R 09.02.2010 . . CM No. 1166 of 2010 (for Delay) . . The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. ITA No. 119 of 2010 This appeal is directed against the order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5th December, 2008 in ITA No. 3804/DEL/2007 relating to Assessment Year 2003-04. We find that the Tribunal has given findings on three factual aspects of the matter. The first addition made by the Assessing Officer was on account of disallowance of Rs. 6,91,481/- on the ground that there were no business activities carried out by the assessee during the relevant period. The Tribunal on assessing the facts has confirmed the deletion of the said amount by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal came to the conclusive finding of fact that the Assessee has carried on business during the Assessment Year 2003-04 as the Assessee did a computer programming job for Fortis Financial Services for which payment has also been received by the Assessee. It has also rendered financial consultancy services by arranging a loan from CitCorp for Oscar Investment Ltd and received commission. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was rightly deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessing Officer has also made an addition on account of sale of a shop which according to the Assessee were estimated at Rs. 5,00,000/-. The shop in question was in the name of a tenant and in the structure known as ?khokhas? and measured only about 30 sq. feet. The Assessee was receiving only a rent of RS. 47.50 per month in respect of the said shop. It is true that the Assessee was not able to produce a sale deed in respect of the said shop, however, the Tribunal noted that the Assessee has produced the sale deed in respect of similar shops sold in March 1997 and December, 1998 in the same locality. The factual position in respect of those sale deed were for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 9,500/-. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 6,000/- indicated by the Assessee being sale price of the said shop was acceptable. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessee could not evict the tenant and as such the Assessee decided to sell the structure to the tenant himself. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any additional amount being received by the Assessee over and above the amount of Rs. 6,000/- disclosed by the Assessee in his account. Thus on the findings of facts, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and accepted the sale price as Rs. 6,000/- and, therefore, deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The third addition made by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 5,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said cash credit was deleted by CIT(A) and confirmed by Income Tax Appellate . . Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded that there was no question of the genuineness of the cash credit and the only point raised by Revenue was that Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) has admitted the additional evidence introduced by the Assessee at the stage of the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after adding Rule 46A concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has exercised its discretion in allowing the additional evidence and also afforded an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence. Consequently, an appeal was made by the Revenue before the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter and since there was no challenge to the genuineness of the cash credit, the finding of CIT(A) in deleting the said addition after admitting additional evidence had been called for. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. No perversity in findings of the Tribunal has been established by the Commissioner of Income Tax and as such no substantial question of law arises in our consideration. The appeal is therefore dismissed. . . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J . . SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 09, 2010 acm . . . . i.5