IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  22.02.2011 
.
.
.
 Present:        Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Navneet Pawan, Advocates for the 
 appellant. 
 None for the respondent. 
.
 + ITA No. 325/2011 
.
 The issue raised in this appeal is as to whether the deletion by ITAT of 
 the sum of `592.55 on account of lease rental were allowable.  After going 
 through the order passed by the Tribunal, which has confirmed the finding of the 
 CIT(A) we find that the Tribunal had gone into all those cases before him.  Same 
 is clear from the following discussions:- 
 ?6.       We have heard both the counsels and perused the records.  It 
 transpires that the assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer that in 
 the original assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has not called for any 
 lease agreements executed between the assessee and the ICICI Ltd.  However, 
 during the reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer has himself admitted that 
 assessee has submitted more copies of agreements between it and M/s ICICI Ltd. 
 Now Assessing Officer has not given any finding that there is any discrepancy 
 between the amount of lease rental payable as per the agreements and that has 
 reflected in that account.  Without any specific basis whatsoever, merely by 
 referring to the reasons for the reopening Assessing Officer went on to disallow 
 the sum of Rs.592.55 lacs.  In this regard, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 
 (Appeals) has rightly noted that when all the agreements were before the 
 Assessing Officer, there was no justification on the part of the Assessing 
 Officer to make any disallowance without giving any finding of discrepancy in 
 this regard.  In this regard, detail of lease rental allowed by the department 
 is reproduced below:- 
.
.
 ITA No. 325/2011 
 page 1 of 2 
.
 A.Y.                      Amount of lease rental 
 1998-99                     2196252 
 2000-01                     2986892 
 2002-03                     141319521 
 2003-04                     190232753 
 2004-05                     189457088 
 2005-06                     188811575 
 2006-07                      99899380 
.
 7.       The above does not reflect any abnormality in the amount of Rs.826.36 
 lacs paid for the impugned assessment years.  Moreover without giving any 
 findings of any discrepancy observed between the lease rental payable, as per 
 the agreement and that shown in the account, no disallowance is sustainable.  It 
 is not the case that any amount has actually not being paid or is of a bogus 
 nature.  Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of 
 the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals).  Hence, we uphold the same.? 
.
 These are only factual aspects and no question of law arises for 
 consideration.  Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 FEBRUARY 22, 2011 
.
.
 AK 
.
 ITA No. 325/2011 
 page 2 of 2 
.
.
.
 07 and 08 #