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