High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. P.S. Jain Company Ltd.
Section 36, 68; IT 46A
Asst. Year 2003-04
Badar Durrez Ahmed & Siddharth Mridul, JJ.
Civil Misc. No. 1166 of 2010
9th February, 2010
Counsel Appeared :
Ms. Sonia Mathur, for the Appellant : B.N. Goswami, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. :
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. IT Appeal No. 119 of 2010
This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dt. 5th Dec., 2008 in ITA No. 3804/Del/2007 relating to asst. yr. 2003-04. We find that the Tribunal has given findings on three factual aspects of the matter. The first addition made by the AO 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 has confirmed the deletion of the said amount by the CIT (A). The Tribunal came to the conclusive finding of fact that the assessee carried on business during the asst. yr. 2003-04 as the assessee did a computer programming job for Fortis financial services for which payment had also been received by the assessee. It had also rendered financial consultancy services by arranging a loan from CitiCorp for Oscar Investment Ltd. and had received commission. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was rightly deleted by the CIT (A).
The AO has also made an addition on account of sale of a shop which, according to the AO, had an estimated value of Rs. 5,00,000. The shop in question was in the occupation of a tenant and was a temporary structure known as a “khokha” and measured only about 30 sq. ft. The assessee was receiving only a sum of Rs. 47.50 per month by way of rent 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 sale deeds in respect of similar shops sold in March, 1997 and December, 1998 in the same locality. The factual position in respect of those sale deeds in that those shops were sold for Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 9,500. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 6,000 indicated by the assessee as being the 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 fact, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the CIT(A) and accepted the sale price as Rs. 6,000 and, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO.
The third addition made by the AO was of Rs. 5,000 on account of unexplained cash credit under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The said cash credit was deleted by CIT(A) and the deletion was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded that there was no question with regard to the genuineness of the cash credit and the only point raised by the Revenue was that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence introduced by the assessee at the stage of the appeal. The Tribunal, after referring to r. 46A, concluded that the CIT(A) had exercised his discretion in allowing the additional evidence and had also afforded an opportunity to the AO to examine the additional evidence. The Tribunal held that 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 did not call for any interference.
We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. No perversity in the findings of the Tribunal has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[Citation : 322 ITR 320]
