IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 4 
         ITA 887/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                 ..... 
 Appellant 
 Through Mrs. P.L. Bansal, Adv. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 M K TOWERS PVT LTD                                               ..... 
 Respondent 
 Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               19.07.2010 
 . 
 In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 the assail is to the order dated 30th April, 2009 passed by the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal?) whereby the tribunal has given the 
 stamp of approval to the order passed by the CIT(A) wherein the First Appellate 
 Authority had allowed the appeal of the assessee. 
 It is worth noting in paragraph 5 of the order impugned the tribunal has 
 held thus:- 
 ?5.       At the time of hearing, both the counsels were agreed that identical 
 issue arose before Tribunal in another group companies cases in the case of M/s 
 K.J. Towers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s K.C. Towers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1454 and 
 1218/Del/2008 dated 30.01.2009 have held as under: 
 . 
 ITA No.887/2010                                                        Page 1 of 
 3 
 ?We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on 
 record.  Ld. CIT(A) in both the cases has discussed the matter in detail.  He 
 has arrived at the finding that the properties were purchased in financial year 
 1994-95 relevant to assessment year 1995-96.  The agricultural lands were not 
 purchased in year under consideration.  The properties were registered much 
 earlier to the assessment year 1997-98.  It is a well known fact that sale 
 consideration is paid at the time of registration of properties.  Since the 
 properties were registered in financial year 1994-95, the entire sale 
 consideration both in cash and in cheques were received at the time of 
 registration and therefore, no addition can be made in assessment year 1997-98. 
 Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A).?? 
 . 
 . 
 In course of hearing, we have been apprised by Mr. Satyen Sethi, learned 
 counsel for the assessee that the statement of villagers were not given but some 
 gist was provided to the assessee as a result of which the CIT(A), as is evident 
 from the order reproduced by the Tribunal, the benefit was granted.  It is 
 contended by him that in ITA No.1035/2009 on 22nd October, 2009 this Court under 
 similar circumstances had declined to interfere.  Mrs. Bansal, learned counsel 
 for the revenue submitted that the order passed in the said appeal is 
 . 
 . 
 distinguishable inasmuch as the statements were supplied to the assessee.  To 
 bolster the said stand she has invited our attention to the written submissions 
 of the assessee. 
 On a perusal of the written submissions, it is clear as crystal that he had 
 made  a  categorical  assertion that the statements were not provided but some 
 ITA No.887/2010                                                        Page 2 of 
 3 
 sketchy gist was provided.  Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the 
 statements are not provided.  This Court in ITA No.1035/2009 has expressed the 
 view as follows:- 
 ?The additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in re-assessment proceedings 
 carried out under Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act were based on the 
 statements of certain villagers, who had sold the land in question to the 
 assessee.  However, neither the statements of these villagers were supplied to 
 the assessee nor the assessee was given opportunity to cross-examine those 
 villagers.  On this ground, CIT(A) quashed the addition of Rs.10,07,05/- made by 
 the AO.  The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld this order. 
 . 
 In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of 
 law arises and also the fact that the tax effect in this case is only 4,40,782/- 
 , we are not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid orders.  This appeal is 
 accordingly dismissed? 
 . 
 . 
 Apart from the above, it is worth noting that before the Tribunal both 
 the parties accepted the order passed in M/s K.J. Towers Pvt. Ltd. and other 
 cases and, therefore, it can be construed that the order was passed on consent. 
 Thus, from both the angles, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal as 
 no substantial question of law is involved and, accordingly, the appeal stands 
 dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs. 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 JULY 19, 2010/vk                                                 MANMOHAN, J 
 ITA No.887/2010                                                        Page 3 of 
 3 
 49