Itta/757/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Dhatri Constructions Pvt.ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.757 OF 2014 DATED: 23.01.2015 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Hyderabad … Appellant and Dhatri Constructgions Pvt. Ltd … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.757of2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admittedagainst the judgment and order of the learned Tribunaldated 15.03.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A.No.2185/Hyd/2011 on the following suggestedquestion of law. “Whether, the Tribunal having accepted that theassessee failed to furnish the corroborativeevidence in support of the claim of expenditure iscorrect in law in restricting the disallowance to 10%of the total expenditure as against 30% of the totalexpenditure sustained by the CIT(A)?” We have heard Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned counsel forthe appellant and gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal. We notice in this matter that the issue is with regard tothe extent of disallowance of expenditure incurred onaccount of development of the land. The Assessing Officerdisallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee.However, the Commissioner of Income Tax after considering the material placed before him allowed 30%disallowance. Mr. J.V.Prasad says that 30% disallowance isreasonable in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingto him, the learned Tribunal should not have been interferedwith this. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal has takennote of the material and then thought it fit, in its owndiscretion, that 10% disallowance should be justified. Afterappreciating the fact with regard to the nature of thedevelopment done by the assessee in the land andconsidering the document, namely, voucher, placed beforeit, the learned Tribunal exercised its discretion. We don’tthink that its discretion is an arbitrary one or exercise thereofis based on no material. Under the circumstances, wecannot substitute our discretion to interfere with theimpugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.Substituting discretion cannot be a point of law, which issought to be asked before us. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. No order as tocosts. 23[rd] JANUARY, 2015. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni