Ita/16/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Vaibhav Entrprises

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 17[th] OF JULY, 2023 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 16 of 2023 BETWEEN:- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE ) .....PETITIONER AND M/S VAIBHAV ENTRPRISES THROUGH CONCERNEDOFFICER STATION ROAD, MAIHAR, SATNA (MADHYAPRADESH) (NONE FOR RESPONDENT ) .....RESPONDENT This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following: ORDER The Revenue has approached this Court by preferring this appeal u/S260A of the Income Tax Act in regard to the dispute pertaining to assessmentyear 2012-13 proposing following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and within the legal spectrum of thecase, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in upholding the decision of Ld.CIT(A) by deleting the addition of Rs.69,18,07,576/- made bythe AO on account of suppression of sales of iron ore ?case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in upholding the decision of Ld.CIT(A) by deleting the addition of Rs.69,18,07,576/- made bythe AO on account of suppression of sales of iron ore ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, while deleting the addition mentioned above, the ITATlaw, while deleting the addition mentioned above, the ITAT has failed to allude to relevant facts brought on record by theAssessing Officer, misread the evidences and its probativevalue thereby giving rise to perversity in the order of ITAT,which itself gives rise to question of law ? 3. Whether, the different sale figures found during seizure in anincriminating evidence as per law which has led the AssessingOfficer to calculate suppression of sales to 20% ? 4. Whether, the Assessing Officer's calculation is inaccordance with law vis-a-vis the deletion made by thelearned ITAT ? 5. Whether, the learned ITAT has erred in law by ignoring thelaw laid down on the appreciation of evidence in the instantmatter ? 6. Whether, the ITAT has applied the relevant law by ignoringthe suppression of sales of iron ore and the legal principlesarising therefrom ? 7. Whether, the suppression rate that was worked around 20%has been ignored by the ITAT in accordance with law or not ? 8. Whether, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in mechanicallyupholding the decision of CIT(A) by ignoring the relevant lawregarding appreciation of evidence ? The foundational question in the present case is as to whether theTribunal committed an error by upholding the decision of CIT (Appeal) therebysustaining deletion of an addition of an amount of Rs.69,18,07, 576/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal while considering the dispute before it in respect of variousassessment years decided the dispute in regard to the assessment year 2012-13by adopting the findings rendered in respect of other assessment years. A bare perusal of the contents of Para 21, 22, 26 and 27 reveals Tribunal found that in absence of any charge of evasion of royalty/tax, it cannot bepresumed that there is any suppression of quantity of production from the mine 3 or the purchase made by appellant from M/s Jai Minerals. The Tribunal alsofound that the findings leading to addition by the Assessing Officer are basedon presumption rather than proof. Moreso, other findings rendered in the aforesaid paragraphs of theimpugned order reveal that they are based on factual disputes and, therefore,neither give rise to any substantial proposed question of law as proposed by theRevenue or otherwise. In the absence of any substantial question of law arising from the findingsof Tribunal which are purely factual in nature, this Court declines admission tothis appeal. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. (SHEEL NAGU)(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGEJUDGEBiswal