Itta/546/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central] v. M/S Kanyaka Parameswari Engg. Ltd

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. No. 546 of 2014 DATED:14.08.2014 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Kanyaka Parameswari Engg. LTd.,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. No. 546 of 2014 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal dated 5.3.2013 in relation to the assessment period from1.4.1996 to 31.3.2002 and 1.4.2002 to 9.10.2002 on the followingsuggested questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition especially whenthe said addition/disallowance was directly attributable to the bogusexpenditure on purchases which was confirmed by the Tribunal ? 2 . Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting theaddition on the ground that there was no seized material on theaddition made by the A.O. when the said addition was nothing but adisallowance consequent to the addition made on bogus expenditureon purchases and which was also confirmed by the Tribunal ? We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant andhave gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. The learned Tribunal, found on fact that the addition was sought tobe made not in relation to any seized material. The exact fact finding ofthe learned Tribunal is set out herein: ”If there is no seized material there cannot be anyaddition. More so, there can be no ad hoc disallowance orestimated disallowance. The Assessing Officer as well asthe CIT(A) not made this addition on the basis of any seizedmaterial.” It was further found that there was no incriminating material orevidence found during the course of search action to indicate that theassessee incurred any such expenditure. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interferewith the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,shall also stand closed. No costs. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 14[th ]August, 2014 Pnb