TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue and in consequence reversed the order of CIT(A) on the issue raised in this appeal. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra Court appeal is whether it involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of s. 260A ibid ? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in limine as in our opinion the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out within the meaning of s. 260A ibid. 5. The issue relates to additions of Rs. 24.50 lacs made by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the deletion so also the Tribunal. In other words, the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of price @ Rs. 6,500 per sq. yd. The payment schedule, however, contained at Annex. A-1/50 reveals that an amount of Rs. 24.50 lacs is on 'others' account. As per scheme, the purchaser is also required to make payment for construction of Rs. 2.50,000 in advance. The letter dt. 30th July, 2000 from Ummaid Heritage found seized at Annexure A-1/51 reveals that 10 per cent of advance is to be paid at the time of registry. This annexure also gives telephone number of Ajai Kumar Mathur as 0291-3091591 and Mr. C.V. Arora as 0291-3092342 but no enquiry has been made from these two persons. The department also relies on another paper placed at paper book page No. 79 which is a copy of seized Annex. A-3/16. This does not reveal the rate of plot of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP). It however, remains, if the department's case is that the promoters of the scheme can be said to have received the amount towards construction or for any reasons more than that disclosed in his accounts by the assessee, a suitable action may be taken in the hands of the vendors in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) therefore, is found justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,50,000 as unaccounted investment which under the present facts and circumstances of the case, needs no interference. Ground in appeal raised by Revenue, therefore, stands rejected." 8. In the first place, what is involved in the case is a pure question of fact and not any question of law much less substantial question of law. ....