Ita/21/2020 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Empowertrans Pvt. Ltd

Order No. 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 21 of 2020 …. Principal Commissioner of Income Appellant Tax-1 Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- …. Respondent M/s. Empowertrans Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar None CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER02.01.2023 I.A. No.28 of 20201. For the reasons stated, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 2. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. ITA No.21 of 2020 3. The question of law sought to be urged by the Appellant-Revenue Department in the present appeal arising from an order dated 16[th] January, 2020 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in ITA No.398/CTK/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 is whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CITA) who deleted the addition of Rs.4,12,30,153/- S. Behera made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the allegation that these were bogus sub-contract expenses credited in favour of M/s. Makeway Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (MCPL) ? 4. The Court notes that the aforementioned company, i.e., MCPL filed its return of income pursuant to a notice issued to it under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). That return was scrutinized by the AO and no irregularity was found vis-à-vis the transaction in question. 5. It is this which was weighed with the ITAT in affirming the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition by holding that the claim of the Revenue that those were the bogus entry was not substantiated by the Revenue. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court is not persuaded that he concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT suffer from any perversity which requires interference of this Court. 7. No substantial question of law as urged arises, the appeal is dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge