Ita/851/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Mohammed Nazeer Ahmed

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATEBD THIS THE [th]DAY OF JULY 2014 PRESEHBN THR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR. AND THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICK B. MANOHAR| ITA No.851 OF 2008$%&ITA.No.852 otf 200 BETWEEN; 1.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Circle,C.R.Building,Queens Road, Bangalore. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of ©Income-Tax, Cuircle-1(3) C.R.Building, Queens Road,Bangalore.APPELLANTS COMMON. (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: Mohammed Nazeer Ahmed, No.20/1, Berlie Street,Longiord Street,sShanthinagar,Bangalore.RBSPONDEBENT COMMON (By Smt 8S. Annapoorna and Jannavi Raghuraman,Advocatesn for M/s.Crest Law Partners) These ITAs are filed under Section ZJ60-A ot I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 25.04.2008 passedin CO.No.73/Bang/2007 in IT(SS)A.No.88/BNG/2006.and in IT(SS)A.No.88/BNG/2006- respectively for theAssessment Year 1997-98 to 2003-2004 praying toformulate the substantial questions of law statedtherein and to allow the appeal and set aside the orderpassed by the ITAT, Bangalore in CO.No.73/Bang/2007—1n IT(SS)A.No.88/BNG/2006|andIT(SS)A.No.88/BNG/2006dated|25.04.2008|andconfirm the orders of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle — (1)3, Bangalore. These appeals coming on for hearing this day, |N. KUMAR, J.delivered the following:- JUDGMENT The revenue has raised the following threesubstantial questions of law as arising for considerationin both the appeals:- “(a)Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in holding that a sum ofRs.9,75,000/- expenses incurred by the|assessee for development of three sites|prior to O1.04.1996 1.e. beyond the Block Period should be allowed as an'expenditurewithouttakingintoconsideration the relevant materials and|consequentlyrecorded(Cperversefinding? (b)Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in holding that a sum of|Rs.3,11.970/- shown in the name of|assessee’s wife cannot be treated as|the income of the assessee despite the|assessee not furnishing any details to|substantiate the claim and consequentlyrecorded a perverse finding?| (c)Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in allowing a deduction ofRs.8,13,340/.-,the|capitalas|OrlO!1.04. 199Orlaccount.of|openingcapital when the Block Period was for'the years 1997-98 to 2003-04 up to|18.12.2002?” D2 The learned counsel for the revenue has/taken us to the relevant portions of the order passed bythe Tribunal. We find from the said order that the'§Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the First Appellate Authority as purely the question of fact.When two fact finding authorities have recorded aconcurrent finding of fact, we do not see anyjustification to interfere with the said finding as it wasstrictly in accordance with law. In that view of thematter, strictly speaking these questions do not arise forconsideration. Even if it is so, they are answered infavour of the assessee and against the revenue.| 3.|Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/-. JUDGE. Sd/-. JUDGE.