Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. on 10 September, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#4
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 1329/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate
versus
VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 10th September, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
MANMOHAN, J:
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") challenging the
order dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in IT(SS)A Nos. 395/Del/2003 and
509/Del/2003 for the Block Period 01st April, 1989 to 10th February,
2000.
2. Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue
submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of
` 81,39,919/- and ` 3,38,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short,
"AO") on account of unexplained expenditure on construction of
farmhouse and flat on the basis of seized material. Mrs. Bansal further
submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the entries
recorded in the seized materials were mere projections.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue and having
perused the appeal papers, we are of the view that the issue raised in the
present appeal is essentially a question of fact. The final fact finding
authority namely, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for arriving at
its factual conclusion. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"8. The issue which require adjudication at our end is
whether the notings on different pages of annexure A-12 in
fact demonstrate the incurrence of expenses by the
assessee out of books. The contention of the assessee in
brief was whatever has actually been incurred by it that
has been debited in the books of accounts. In this
computerized sheet only projected figures are available
which are to be forwarded to Shri Chandan Basu the
alleged de-facto owner of the flat as well as the farmhouse.
With the assistance of Ld. Representative, we have
specifically gone through these documents in the light of
the finding recorded by the CIT(A). In our opinion the
document has to be read as a whole by giving simple
meaning to the narration recorded in the document. On a
plain reading of the entries recorded in this document
nowhere suggest that assessee has actually incurred the
expenses amount to Rs.1,35,87,866/- on the construction of
the farmhouse and Rs.42,86,880/-. Thus in our opinion,
Ld. First Appellate Authority has appreciated the facts
and circumstances emerging out from this document in
right perspective. Wherever against any entry expression
"paid" is written, Ld. CIT(A) construed that expenses must
have actually been incurred. But wherever it is just an
amount is mentioned, Ld. First Appellate Authority took it
as expenses upto the date of search these have been shown
in the books. It was constructing the building on behalf of
the third concern. There can be no motive to conceal the
cost of construction because cost of construction had not
to be incurred from its own account. It is Shri Chandan
Basu who has to bear the cost of construction. ON the
basis this statement stand of the assessee could be that
Rs.81 lacs was to come from Shri Chandan Basu and the
assessee was to spent Rs.178.75 i.e. Rs.1,35,87,866/- on
the farmhouse and Rs.42,86,880/- on the flat. The AO
except this alleged projected statement of account failed to
bring any other evidence exhibiting the circumstance the
circumstance that assessee had actually incurred the
expenses. Thus after going through the order of Ld.
CIT(A) we do not find any reason to interfere in it because
Ld. First Appellate Authority has taken into cognizance,
the notings found in the paper in right perspective."
4. Consequently, the present appeal being bereft of merit, is
dismissed in limine.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
js
