The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 24 v. M/S.balaji Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2509 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 24 ..... Appellant Vs. M/s.Balaji Developers ..... Respondent Mr.A.K.Saxena for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATE : APRIL 25, 2012 P.C.: On the Appeal being restored to file, it has been taken up on board for admission and has been called out by consent. 2.This Appeal arises from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7 September 2010. The Assessment Year to which the Appeal relates is 2005 – 06. The revenue has raised the following question of law :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.35,54,000/- without appreciating that the information of taking on money was given by no other person than the partner of the assessee firm ? ITXA2509_11 3.The Tribunal has noted in para (8) of its impugned decision that the addition which was made, by the Assessing Officer was on the basis of a letter addressed by the spouse of a partner of the Assessee, which is a partnership firm. Most of the financial statements annexed to the letter were either type written or consisted of computer printouts. No evidence was adduced before or brought on record before the Assessing Officer to support the allegations as regards the receipt of ‘on-money’ by the assessee from the purchasers of the flats. The person who had addressed the letter did not appear before the Assessing Officer to confirm the allegation nor did the Assessing Officer issue any summons. The wife of the person who had signed the letter did not appear before the Assessing Officer to confirm the allegations. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the decision in Bangodaya Cotton Mill Ltd. vs. CIT [1] and in deleting the addition. The Appeal does not raise any question of law, whatever much less a substantial question of law. There is no merit in the Appeal. 3.We, therefore, dismiss the same. No costs. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. R.D. DHANUKA, J.