IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
         ITA 1440/2010  
 . 
 CIT                                        ..... Appellant 
 Through       Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Standing 
 Counsel. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 TCL PROPERTIES P LTD        ..... Respondent 
 Through       Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Advocate 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                     23.09.2010 
 . 
 Heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned standing counsel for revenue and Mr. 
 Anand Aggarwal, learned counsel for assessee. 
 The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2009 
 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?H?, New Delhi (for 
 short ?tribunal?) in ITA No. 1478/Del/2007 pertaining to the Assessment Year 
 2002-2003. 
 . 
 ITA 1440/2010 
 Page 1 of 3 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The revenue in the memo of appeal has sought to raise the following 
 substantial questions of law :- 
 i) Whether the tribunal was correct in law in upholding the orders of the 
 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ?CTT(A)?] in deleting the 
 addition of ` 5,12,458/- on account of undisclosed income? 
 ii) Whether the tribunal was correct in law in upholding the orders of CIT(A) in 
 deleting the addition of ` 15,64,055/- on account of receipt against Land 
 Development made by the Assessing Officer? 
 iii) Whether the order of the tribunal was perverse in law? 
 . 
 On a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, it is evincible that 
 all questions are interlinked inasmuch as the Assessing Officer has formed the 
 opinion that the assessee has received a sum of                    `28,72,458/- 
 from M/s. Raghav Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 
 The CIT(A) in the appeal deleted the addition and accepted the claim put 
 forth by the assessee on the ground that the accounts between  M/s.  Raghav 
 Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and assessee tallied; 
 . 
 ITA 1440/2010 
 Page 3 of 3 
 . 
 that the TDS certificate issued by M/s. Raghav Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. also 
 showed ` 23,60,000/-; that the breakup of the expenses shown by the assessee as 
 well as the other company are in accord with the books of accounts; that first 
 appellate authority has scrutinised the books of accounts and material brought 
 on record; and the Assessing Officer has misconstrued the whole concept and 
 added the amount. 
 The tribunal has opined that the assessee has not received any amount 
 that has not been shown in the books of account.         In view of the 
 aforesaid, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in 
 the present appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but with no order as 
 to costs. 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 
 rn 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 1440/2010 
 Page 3 of 3 
 . 
 #9