Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax -1(2) Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. M/S A.p. Nirman Ltd. H-6 Street

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPURTAXC No. 76 of 2019 NAFR Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax -1(2) Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus M/s A.P. Nirman Ltd. H-6 Street No.4, Shri Ram Nagar, Phase-I, ShankarNagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________________ For Appellant: Shri Amit Chaudhari and Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocates _________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 20.01.2020 1.The appeal is arising from the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITANo.139/RPR/2013. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITANo.139/RPR/2013. 2.On filing the return by the Assessee declaring a total income ofRs.11,34,10,725/-, the case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and theproceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 whereby an addition to the extent of Rs.2,13,94,500/- was madeand assessed accordingly.Rs.11,34,10,725/-, the case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and theproceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 whereby an addition to the extent of Rs.2,13,94,500/- was madeand assessed accordingly. 3.The course and proceedings pursued by the Department, made theAssessee to feel aggrieved, who filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) where the appeal was allowed in part. This made theAssessee to feel aggrieved, who filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) where the appeal was allowed in part. This made the Department to take up a matter before the Tribunal referring to the factsand figures, where interference was declined and the appeal wasdismissed. This, in turn is put to challenge in this appeal preferred by theRevenue, suggesting the following as substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on points of law and on facts &circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justifiedin confirming the order of CIT (A) who has erred bydeleting the addition of Rs.2,13,94,500/- made by theAO on account of non genuine expenditure alleged tohave been paid to various sub contractors, therebyrendering the decision which is perverse ? 2. Whether on points of law and on facts &circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justifiedin confirming the order of CIT (A) who has erred bydeleting the addition of Rs.7,96,72,605/- made by theAO on account of non genuine expenditure alleged tohave been paid to M/s Soumya Mining Pvt. Ltd. ? 3. Whether on point of law and on facts &circumstances of the case, the ITATA was justified inupholding the findings of CIT (A), thereby withoutdistinguishing the findings of the AO which are basedon the reliance placed on the ratios of the catena oforders by Hon'ble Supreme Court such as CIT Vs.Calcutta Agency Ltd. [(1951) 19 ITR 199], LaxmiratanCotton Mills Co. Vs. CIT [(1969) 73 ITR 634', LHSugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1980)125 ITR 293], which has held that, the assessee canclaim the deduction for the expenses provided it isable to establish the documentary and cogentevidences that such expenditures was incurred forthe business of the assessee ?” Anu 4.Heard Shri Amit Chaudhari, the learned standing counsel for theDepartment at length.Department at length. Anu 4.Heard Shri Amit Chaudhari, the learned standing counsel for theDepartment at length.Department at length. 5.Considering the nature of pleadings raised and also the discussion madeby the Tribunal in detail, we are of the view that the decision has beenrendered by the Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does notinvolve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law. by the Tribunal in detail, we are of the view that the decision has beenrendered by the Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does notinvolve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law. 6.This appeal is devoid of any merit, so as to have it entertained in terms ofSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Interference is declined andappeal stands dismissed.Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Interference is declined andappeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) Chief Justice Judge (Parth Prateem Sahu)