Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal v. M/S. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. Bhopal

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Income Tax Appeal No. : 96 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal - V/s - M/s. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. Bhopal Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (01–12–2015) This is revenue’s appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act calling in question tenability of an order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Assesse being engaged in manufacturing of bear and bottling along with other Indian made foreign liquors. On 30.11.2000 a return of income of Rs.1,60,96,580/- was filed. The case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3), the assessment was completed and the total income assessed was Rs.4,48,77,110/-. On appeal being filed the Commissioner Income Tax granted certain deletion and when certain further deletions were also granted by the appellate tribunal, challenging the order passed by the tribunal, this appeal has been filed. In this appeal mainly two questions are raised. One is a deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on account of dealership deposit and further certain deletion in the matter of deposit of the provident fund contribution after the due date. Taking us through the orders passed by the Assessment Officer and the Commissioner Appeal, Shri Lal tried to indicate that for deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- as the dealers who had made the deposit were not found to be creditworthy and as the genuineness of the transactions is not established, concurrent findings were recorded by both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner Appeal and in a perverse manner the tribunal has interfered in this assessment. Accordingly it is stated that interference with assessment pertaining to deletion, on this count an error is committed by the tribunal. Similarly in the matter of depositing the provident fund dues with the statutory provident fund authorities it is argued that as amount was not deposited in time, the same amounts to violation of requirement of Section 224(10) of the act and in permitting deletion of this amount even after it was established that it was deposited with the authorities, statutory in nature after the due date, it is argued that the learned tribunal has committed an error. We have considered the contentions advanced in this regard and we find that with regard to deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- it is observed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from para 13 onwards that this amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was shown to have been deposited by M/s. High Spirit Beverages P. Ltd. and M/s. Maa Kali Enterprises. Finding that the genuineness and creditworthiness of these deposits are not established and there is no evidence to show that these deposits were made genuinely, the amount was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner Appeal. However, while reconsidering the matter the tribunal found that with regard to this deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-, the same was made by M/s. High Spirit Beverages P. Ltd. vide cheque No.1355 dated 8.3.2000 drawn on State Bank of India and by M/s. Maa Kali Enterprises by way of Demand Draft No.66578 dated 11.11.1999 again drawn on State Bank of India. The Tribunal scrutinized the record and found that apart from giving the particulars of cheque and demand draft the assesse has also furnished photocopy of Vouchers and bank statement (pages 87-89 of the paper book) and from these records it is found that these amounts were credited through bank transactions. It is also found in addition thereto entries of the withdrawn and deposits are available in the bank’s passbook and other bank documents filed by the assesse. That being so it is reasonable finding of facts, arrived at on due appreciation of the evidence on records and, therefore, no error is committed by the tribunal warranting reconsideration, accordingly we find no ground to go into this question. As far as second ground is concerned it pertains to reducing the sum of Rs.6,14 ,986/- to Rs.2,40,980/- being the late deposit of provident fund and not depositing the provident fund collected without assigning any reason after the statutory due date with the provident fund authority. From para 10 onwards learned tribunal has considered this aspect of matter and it is found that amount deposit with the statutory provident fund authority is within the period stipulated including the grace period, therefore, the reason for disallowance is not permissible and such disallowance has been interfered with. It is found by the learned tribunal that for the sum of Rs.2,40,980 as the same was not deposited in time, no relief can be granted, but for the remaining amount deposited with the provident fund in time, as per law, the benefit is extended. This is also finding of fact based on due appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record and therefore we find no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference, the appeal stands dismissed. ss (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE (K. K. TRIVEDI) JUDGE