Itxa/1196/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 v. Smt. Manjula S. Goradia

k IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1196 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 ...Appellant.V/s.Smt. Manjula S. Goradia ...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the Respondent. CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI ANDA.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED :5 NOVEMBER, 2014. P.C.: 1Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Revenue is aggrieved and dissatisfied with that part of the order passed by the Tribunal where it dismissed Revenue's Income Tax Appeal No.900/MUM/2010. 2The Tribunal while disposing of the Appeal has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In other words, the Revenue’s Appeal has been dismissed. The Assessment Year is 2004-2005. 3The only contention raised before us is that the amount of Rs.70,00,000/- and odd was not paid to the recorded tenant but to one Mr. Virendra Kumar Mehta. That was not a permissible deduction. katkam k 4The Tribunal found that the recorded tenant of the Assessee was one Mr. Sachdeo. The amount was paid to Mr. Virendra Kumar Mehta who was occupying the immovable property in place of the recorded tenant. The amount was paid in lieu of obtaining vacant possession of this flat/immovable property from Mr. Virendra Kumar Mehta. The Assessing Officer's conclusion that the amount should have been paid only to Mr. Sachdev and none else has been reversed by the Commissioner by observing that Mr. Virendra Kumar Mehta was, in fact, brought by Mr. Sachdeo in his place. The Assessee paid this amount so that he gets vacant possession of the property. As far as the recorded tenant Mr. Sachdeo is concerned he was agreeable to be given a flat costing Rs.70,86,956/-. It is in these circumstances that the claim was granted by the Commissioner. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in para 7 of the impugned order refers to this admitted factual position. So considered and in the light of the same, we do not find any perversity in the conclusion of the Tribunal. The same is also not vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in the Revenue Appeal. It is dismissed. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)