Commissioner Of Income Tax–Ii, Jodhpur v. M/S P T M Industries, Balotra

[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.52/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax–II, JodhpurVersusM/s P T M Industries, Balotra Date of Judgment :: 17.03.2015 PRESENTHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. Sunil Bhandari for the appellant BY THE COURT : While making assessment as per the provisions ofSection 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Actof 1961'), the assessing officer for the assessment year 2005-06allowed deduction as per Section 80IB of the Act of 1961 to therespondent-assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Jodhpur while exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act of1961 set aside the order of assessment and directed theassessment officer to reconsider the entire issue by taking intoconsideration several points mentioned in the order passed byhim. The assessing officer while making the assessment afreshdisallowed deductions as per the provisions of Section 80IB ofthe Act of 1961. The assessee assailed validity of the same by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), that came to be allowed on 17.01.2011. The orderpassed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came tobe affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JodhpurBench, Jodhpur vide the order dated 20.12.2012. Beingaggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred by the Revenue. The argument advanced by learned counsel for theappellant is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) aswell as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciatethat the assessee consumed a meagre electricity, but has given ahuge production and therefore, that creates doubts about hisclaim about deductions as per Section 80IB of the Act of 1961. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has examined the entire issue indetail by taking into consideration all the relevant facts. Suchfinding of fact does not require interference in the appellatejurisdiction. The appeal does not involve any substantialquestion of law. Dismissed, accordingly. , J. , J. Pramod