Itta/207/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ch.veeraju And Co

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.207 of 2013 DATED: 5.7.2013 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Rajahmundry.. … Appellant And M/s. Ch. Veerraju & Co.,Rajahmundry. … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA I.T.T.A.No.207 OF 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal dated 18.5.2007 in relation to assessment year 1998-99 on thefollowing suggested questions of law: A.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in affirming the deletion ofaddition of income on account of profit from metal sales account ?addition of income on account of profit from metal sales account ? B.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in accepting the assessee’splea as regards expenditure allegedly incurred by him, in spite of therebeing no acceptable material to substantiate the claim ?plea as regards expenditure allegedly incurred by him, in spite of therebeing no acceptable material to substantiate the claim ? C.Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal recorded in this behalf isbased on material on record ?based on material on record ? The Tribunal has come to a fact finding, which reads thus: “That the assessee has included expenses for removing waste earth forexcavating road meal boulders which is necessary in such line of business. Ithas also been noticed that in subsequent years, such expenses were reducedand considerable profit from quarry was there. The expenses claimed arenecessary in this line of business of the assessee. The A.O. made the additionsimply on the basis that the revenue stamps were affixed later. It was not thecase of the A.O. that neither the expenses claimed were bogus nor is there anymaterial to show so. We find that if the assessee incurred expenses for thepurpose of business which is in the nature of revenue, the same is allowable,even though the final result may be profit or loss. We find that the A.O. has notgiven any sound reason for making such huge addition.” In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not think that this Courtwill appreciate again the facts on any ground whatsoever. It is not the case ofthe assessee that the assessee did not incur such expenses. But, the saidexpenses were disallowed on the ground that the revenue stamp was affixedlater. Truth cannot be ignored and the learned Tribunal, in our view, hasascertained the truth and found that there has been business expenditure and thesame was allowed. We do not find that any element of law is involved in this appeal. Theappeal is accordingly dismissed. ________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ____________ G. ROHINI, J 05.07.2013 pnb