IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 104/2013  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I  ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through :  Mr Sanjeev Rajpal 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 VATIKA LANDBASE PVT LTD     ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through :  Mr Prakash Kumar 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
        25.02.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax 
 Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the 
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 1289/Del/2012 pertaining to the 
 assessment year 2003-04.  The Assessing Officer has made an enhancement 
 of income of ` 29,12,448/- under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 in the said assessment year.  The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 
 had deleted the said enhancement.  The revenue went up in appeal before 
 the Tribunal and the ground taken by the revenue was as under:- 
 . 
 ?On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has 
 erred in deleting the enhancement of income of ` 29,12,448/- made by the 
 AO by passing on order under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the 
 ground that the assessee had failed to reconcile the claim of TDS and 
 income as per TDS certificates.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Tribunal concurred with the views taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the following manner:- 
 . 
 ?7.  The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) considered the submissions of the 
 assessee and held that the assessee successfully demonstrated that out of 
 income shown in the profit and loss account under the head of other 
 income, 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 the income of Rs.99,93,995 related to commission received and other 
 miscellaneous income.  He also observed that the assessee also explained 
 that out of such income of Rs.99,93,995/-, tax was deducted only on 
 income of Rs.77,27,623 and no tax was deducted at source on the remaining 
 amount already disclosed as income by the appellant and appellant had 
 disclosed more amounts as income than income as per relevant TDS 
 certificates. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) finally observed 
 that the Assessing Officer failed to confront the assessee for rebuttal 
 and passed the order without even bringing to the notice of the assessee 
 as to which of the income was covered under tax deducted at source 
 certificate and which part of the income remained undisclosed. 
 Therefore, we hold that the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income 
 Tax (A) are based on justified and reasonable grounds and we are unable 
 to see any infirmity or mistake in the impugned order.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The findings are purely factual.  No question of law, what to speak 
 of a substantial question of law, arises for our consideration.  The 
 appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 FEBRUARY 25, 2013 
 . 
 SR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 7 
 .