1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 73 of 2019 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Appellant Versus M/s. Aarti Infrastructure and Buildcon Ltd., Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Respondent For Appellant/Revenue : Shri Amit Chaudhari and Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocates Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 21.01.2020 1. appeal is arising from order dated 15.02.2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in IT(SS)A No.30/RPR/2013. 2. On filing return by Assessee declaring total income of Rs.2,20,25,990/-, case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and proceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby addition to extent of Rs.9,17,91,005/- was made and assessed accordingly. 2 3. course and proceedings pursued by Department, made Assessee to feel aggrieved, who filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) where appeal was allowed. This made Department to take up matter before Tribunal referring to facts and figures, where interference was declined and appeal was dismissed. This, in turn is put to challenge in this appeal preferred by Revenue, suggesting following questions as substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on point of law and on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in confirming order of Id. CIT(A) who has deleted addition of Rs. 9,17,91,005/- by ignoring facts brought on record by AO that as per transactions recorded in seized pen drive, sales consideration of land reflected there is to tune of Rs.12,13,11,005/- and not Rs. 2,95,20,000/-, thereby rendering decision which is perverse? 2. Whether on point of law and on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in confirming deletion of addition of Rs. 9,17,91,005/- by Id. CIT(A), thereby placing reliance on twisted and contradictory finding of CIT(A), as CIT(A) having concurrent powers of AO u/s 250(4) of Act ignored glaring discrepancy of facts of transaction on record that though impugned purchaser of land M/s. Purandar Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 23.05.2006 yet payment of Rs.1,80,00,000/- was made on 20.01.2006 and thereby ignoring discrepancies in 3 documentary evidences brought on record, and ignoring ratio of precedent of preponderance of probability as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in land mark case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995, 214 ITR, 801 SC) ? 3. Whether on point of law and on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in confirming order of CIT(A) who has erred by giving finding which is contrary to ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Ajit Kumar in Civil Appeal No.10164 of 2010, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that material found from premise of connected person can be utilized as evidence for making addition in income of assessee ? 4. Heard Shri Amit Chaudhari, learned standing counsel for Department at length. 5. Considering nature of pleadings raised and also discussion made by Tribunal in detail, we are of view that decision has been rendered by Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does not involve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law. 6. This appeal is devoid of any merit, so as to have it entertained in terms of Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961. Interference is declined and appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Chandra Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-2(1), Chhattisgarh v. Aarti Infrastructure and Buildcon Ltd