M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi 'Bench 'A' in ITA No. 3735/Del/2000 in respect of assessment year 1996 -97. It has been claimed that the following substantive question of law would arise for the determination of this Court: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is not perverse in law and on facts, even when the assessee has not discharged its burden of establishing the corrections and genuineness of its claim under the head 'Job Charges' ? Brief facts of the case are that in the return of income filed by the assessee on 29.11.1996 it declared the income of Rs.1,15,93,590/ -. While finalising the assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 46,71,816/ - on account of job charges. The assessee failed to furnish before the Assessing Officer regarding the nature of services rendered by the various contractors. Since the initial burden was not discharged by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 46,71,816 on that account On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in para 12 of its judgement observed as under: The revenue is in appeal and we have considered the rival contentions. After considering the facts brought on records, we are unable to differ from the CIT(A), It is no doubt true that the letters sent by the AO were either not served on the contractors or even if served, they did not appear before the A.O., However, the fact remains that in the earlier years the job work charges paid to the same contractors had been allowed as a deduction. Farther, the documentary evidence adduced by the assessee in support of the claim has not been controverted on the basis of any material brought on record. The contractors are registered under the ESI Act. They had bank accounts into which the cheques were deposited and if there were withdrawals from the accounts the very next day, it is for the contractors made to the contractors. Under these circumstances CIT(A) has rightly accepted the assessee's claim and deleted the disallowance. We uphold order and dismiss the ground.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we find that the question of expenditure of amount on account of job charges is a pure question of fact and in appeal filed under Section 260A of the Act, this Court cannot re -appreciate the evidence to record a conclusion contrary to the one recorded by the Tribunal. Thus no substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court. Therefore, the appeal is wholly devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.;