IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 1. 
         ITA 1299/2010  
 . 
 CIT                                                      ..... Appellant 
 Through:       Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Anshul 
 Sharma, Advs. 
 versus 
 . 
 RPK BUILDERS PVT LTD                         ..... Respondent 
 Through:       None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               07.09.2010 
 . 
 Heard Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue-appellant. 
 In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the 
 assail is to the order dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (for short ?the tribunal?) in ITA No.2048/Del/2008 pertaining 
 to assessment year 2005-06. 
 The singular question that arose before the CIT(A) as well as before the 
 tribunal was whether the addition of Rs.28,42,000/- by the assessing officer on 
 the ground that the said amount was in the realm of unexplained expenditure was 
 correct or not.  Both the authorities, after referring to the facts in entirety, 
 have accepted the plea of the assessee.  It is noticeable that the assessee has 
 purchased agricultural land from one Jagdish Kumar.  The sale price was stated 
 to be Rs.90,24,000/-.  The sale deed was executed on a recorded consideration of 
 Rs.61,82,000/- and the differential sum was shown as expenditure incurred for 
 leveling of land, filling of mud and other incidental expenses.  It is worth 
 noting, the assessing officer called for the details and the assessee submitted 
 an affidavit from Jagdish Kumar who confirmed that he had received the payment 
 of Rs.90,24,000/- on different components.  The assessing officer did not give 
 credence to the same and disallowed the expenditure.  The CIT(A) noted that the 
 assessee had recorded in his books of account the whole consideration of sum on 
 two different dates.  That apart, the amount was paid through account payee 
 . 
 . 
 cheques and was fully verifiable from the record and was confirmed by the 
 seller.  It has also been noted by the CIT(A) that the payment was made to the 
 seller as per the total agreed cost and, therefore, the same should have been 
 accepted.  The CIT(A) as well as the tribunal treated the whole sum as the cost 
 of acquisition and accordingly came to hold that the disallowance made under 
 Section 69C of the Act was incorrect. 
 Mr. Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue-appellant submitted that 
 there was no evidence that the whole amount was paid to Jagdish Kumar for the 
 said purpose.  In our considered opinion, the said submission does not deserve 
 any acceptation inasmuch as the amount was paid to Jagdish Kumar from whom the 
 property was purchased and was developed.  The amount was paid by account payee 
 cheques and was reflected in the books of account. 
 In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration and, accordingly, the 
 appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 
 pk 
 . 
 . 
 .