- (1.) The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 09.02.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in I.T.A. No. 1463/Del/2000 for the assessment year 1996-97. 1.1 On 03.08.2009, the appeal was admitted by a Co-ordinate Bench on the following substantial question of law:-- "Whether the Tribunal's order is liable to be legally vitiated on the ground that the Tribunal has merely disbelieved and rejected the assessee's claim without giving any independent findings on the merits of the case based on the facts and circumstances of the case?" 1.2 The brief facts of the case are that assessee's company, during the assessment year under consideration, drives income from manufacture and sale of sugar machinery and equipments. In the books of account, the assessee has shown the liability of Rs. 1,85,800/- to be payable in favour of Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj (Building Architect), proprietor of M/s. Bhardwaj and Associates, Saharanpur. The A.O. opined that no service was rendered by Mr. Bhardwaj for installing any plant and machinery for sugar factory. However, he allowed the claim to Rs. 60,000/- and made the addition for remaining amount of Rs. 1,25,800/-. The C.I.T.(A), after examining the entire materials, has accepted the claim of the assessee and deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 1,25,800/-. In other words, the CLT.(A) has accepted the payment of Rs. 1,85,800/- to M/s. Bhardwaj associates. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the appeal before the Tribunal, who has restored the addition of Rs. 1,85,800/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal. With this background, heard Sri R.S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, who submits that the A.O. has made the addition of Rs. 1,25,800/-, but the Tribunal has restored the entire liability of Rs. 1,85,800/- which is patently wrong and the Tribunal cannot do so.
(2.) On merit, the learned counsel submits that the details regarding the payment was already furnished. Sri Ashok Bhardwaj was never examined by the A.O. The genuineness of the payment was accepted by C.I.T.(A), so he made the request to delete the addition.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the department had justified the impugned order. He submits that the A.O. has already given the relief of Rs. 60,000/-. There is no further scope to give any relief.;