Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR I.T.A. No :: 74 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax - V/s - M/s Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd. Present:Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri L.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R12/08/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.7059/2014, anapplication for condonation of delay. Even though office note indicatesthat there is a delay of more than 1008 days but keeping in view the factthat the service certificate of the copy of the order was served on 20[th]January, 2011 and this appeal was filed on 20[th] June, 2011, therefore, theappellant took 150 days in filing the appeal wherein 120 days are theprescribed period. In this way, there is only delay of 30 days. 2.Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application forcondonation of delay and finding it to be bonafide, both the applicationsare allowed. The delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 3.Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admissionchallenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IndoreBench in IT(SS)A No.171/Ind/2008 dated 29.12.2010, this appeal has beenfiled under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.A search and survey operation under Section 132 read with Section133 were carried out in the premises of the appellant and thereafter, noticeunder Section 153C was issued, assessing proceedings were concluded and based on the same the assessment order has been passed, the orders havebeen modified by the Commissioner to some extent by deleting someaddition, this appeal has been filed on the substantial questions as areindicated in the body of the memorandum of appeal. As far as substantialquestions of law nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, we find the same are alreadyanswered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in I.T.A. Nos. 52/2011,55/2011, 58/2011, 60/2011, 61/2011, 64/2011 & 65/2011 vide judgmentrendered on 15[th] June, 2015. In the said case, similar questions of lawwere framed with regard to notices issued under Section 153 and therecording of subjective satisfaction for proceeding under Section 153 havebeen considered and identical questions canvassed have been rejected by aco-ordinate bench of this Court. 5.Keeping in view the aforesaid, we find no error in the order passedby the Tribunal or the appellant/Commissioner in the matter of decidingthe substantial questions of law nos. 1 to 5 as are formulated in thememorandum of appeal. 6.As far as substantial questions of law nos. 6 & 7 are concerned, wefind that it pertains to deletion of certain additions and in Paragraph-83 ofthe order passed by the Appellate Tribunal it has been found that on dueappreciation of the material available on record, a finding of fact has beenrecorded and the deletion has been found to be reasonable in nature. 7.In view of the above, as the question formulated are the questions offact which has been concurrently decided by both the authorities. Noquestion of law much less any substantial question of law arises forconsideration in this appeal. 8.The orders passed by the Commissioner (appeals) and the Tribunalare based on appreciation of fact and evidence, they are pure question offact. N.Mohan/- 9.Accordingly, finding no reason to interfere in the matter and findingno substantial question of law warranting re-consideration, this appealstands dismissed. 10.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon)Judge (Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge