Itta/744/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Ganapathi Ingots Pvt Ltd

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 744 of 2014 DATED:30.01.2015 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. And … Appellant M/s. Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 744 of 2014 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan JyotiSengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted by theRevenue against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunaldated 10.8.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06 on thefollowing suggested questions of law: (A) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was correct in law in holding that oncefinished flats are handed over by the Developerto the Assessee there was further need for theAssessee to incur huge expenditure on extraworks and also there is no evidence of suchexpenditure ? (B) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was correct in law in holding that theland held for road widening is to be valued andthe value needs to be excluded from the totalcost of the land for the purpose of closing stock,in spite of there being no evidence on record toshow the same ? (C) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the finding of theAppellate Tribunal was correct in law in holdingthat the assessee has shown profit ofRs.15,96,405/- on account of extra workswhereas in reality, loss of Rs.6,83,595/- isshown by the assessee ? (D)Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was correct in law in holding that thevalue of unsold flat should not be taken intoclosing stock despite the fact that the assesseehanded over possession of entire land to theDeveloper and also received constructed areaof 4550 sq.ft., which includes unsold flat ? (E)Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the finding of theAppellate Tribunal on various issues can besaid to be based on material on record ? We have heard Mr.S.R. Ashok, learned senior counselappearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal as well as theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after appreciating the factheld that the amount of income offered for taxation was reasonableand justified. We do not think that we should substitute our ownappreciation, which is not simply permissible in exercise ofjurisdiction under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, we do not find any element of law, much less anysubstantial question of law to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the pending miscellaneous applications shallalso stand closed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 30[th ]January, 2015 Pnb