IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
         ITA 873/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF 
 INCOME TAX                                 ?.. Appellant 
 Through       Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 MOD IMPEX INDIA                      ?.. Respondent 
 Through       None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON?BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                      16.07.2010 
 In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 (for brevity ?Act?) the Revenue has called  in question the legal tenability of 
 the order dated 22nd May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in 
 short ?tribunal?) in ITA No. 3761/Del/08. 
 We have heard Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for Revenue on the 
 question of admission. 
 . 
 ITA 873/2010                                                               Page 
 1 of 3 
 . 
 The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether the CIT(A) 
 being approached by the assessee has appositely addressed itself with regard to 
 the transactions placed by the assessee. 
 The tribunal upon consideration of the submissions raised by the department 
 as well as the assessee came to hold that CIT(A) on the basis of material 
 brought on record has opined that the assessing officer had made addition on 
 account of entire purchases made from three parties namely, M/s. Bhavani Das 
 Sons, M/s. Murugan Export and M/s. Preet Textiles, on the ground  that summons 
 could not be served, but that will not make a case for disallowance.  The 
 tribunal in paragraph 6 of the order has held thus: 
 ?6.       From the above, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue on the 
 reasonable basis because he has found that assessee has brought all relevant 
 details and evidences before him including confirmation of accounts statement, 
 copy of the ledger account copies of bills of these parties and copies of all 
 cheques issued to these parties which have been placed on record.  The assessee 
 has also furnished copy of bank account with Canara Bank which shows that 
 cheques have been duly debited against the name of the respective parties.  It 
 is also noted by Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has also furnished evidence to show 
 that these cheques have been cleared in the respective bank accounts of the 
 parties and hence the identity of the parties and genuineness of the transaction 
 has been clearly established by the assessee.  Under these facts, we are of the 
 considered opinion that no interference is called for in this order of Ld. 
 CIT(A) and hence we uphold the same.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 873/2010                                                               Page 
 2 of 3 
 . 
 In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, we are of the considered opinion 
 that in the present case no substantial question of law is involved. 
 Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 JULY 16, 2010 
 rn 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 873/2010                                                               Page 
 3 of 3 
 . 
 #15 
 . 
 . 
 .