Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur v. Shri Gautam Sharma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 113 / 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Gautam Sharma, R/o 101, 1st Street, Babu Rajendra Marg, Pal Link Road, Masuria. Jodhpur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALAJ U D G M E N T 17/04/2018 In this Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act of 1961), the judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.232/Jodh/2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is under challenge. As per facts of the case, the respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. It purchases agricultural land and after developing and converting into small plots, sells the same to its customers. The assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1961 was completed on 29.03.2014 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at a total income of Rs.1,05,19,690/- as against returned income of Rs.17,40,647/- by making addition of Rs.37,57,650/- i.e. 50% out of land development expenses claimed at Rs.75,15,300/-, addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act of 1961, addition f Rs.38,01,500/- as unexplained advance for plot and addition of Rs.81,471/- out of misc. expenses claimed and Rs.1,38,420/- on account of excess interest paid on loan. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment order dated 29.03.2014, the respondent/assessee filed appeal before the learned C.I.T. (A) and the learned C.I.T. (A) partly deleted the additions so made by the A.O vide its order dated 23.02.2017. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 23.02.2017 (received on 08.03.2017), the Revenue preferred appeal before the learned ITAT and the learned ITAT affirmed the order passed by the learned C.I.T. (A) who has partly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, we are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in this appeal because the learned C.I.T. (A) and learned ITAT have thoroughly discussed the entire matter and decided the controversy with regard to deleting the addition of Rs.37,57,650/- made on account of disallowance of land development expenses. In our opinion, both the authorities below have correctly decided the controversy on the exact ground of appeal taken by the assessee. No question of law emerges for consideration. Accordingly, and in view of above, the instant income tax appeal is hereby dismissed. (RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA) J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J.