Itxa/1302/2016 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4 v. Meredian Construction Pvt Ltd

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1302 OF 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-4… Appellant V/s.M/s Meridian Construction Pvt. Ltd.… Respondent --- Mr.A.R.Malhotra i/by Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.Mr.Ravindra Poojary i/by Mr.Ajaykumar Singh for theRespondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 31, 2019. P.C.:- 1.This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging thejudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2.Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee pointed outidentical issue as raised in the present appeal had come up forconsideration before this Court concerning this very assessee, inIncome Tax Appeal No.980 of 2016 and connected appeals. Theappeals were dismissed by an order dated 8[th] January, 2019,making following observations:- “The following question of law is presented for ourconsideration:- Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the ITAT was justified in deleting theaddition on account of estimation ofprofit on sales not recorded in thebooksofaccounts,withoutappreciating the fact that as perprovisions of section 132(4A), thepresumptions are that (a) the seizeddocuments found in the premises ofthe assessee belong to the assesseeand (b) the contents of the seizeddocuments are true and that theassessee had failed to rebut the abovepresumptions? 2 The respondent assessed is a limitedCompany and is engaged in the business ofconstruction. The assessee was subjected to searchand seizure operation carried out by the RevenueAuthorities on 10th August, 2006 pursuant towhich notice under Section 153A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) was issued.The Assessing Officer made additions relying onthe documents seized during search and thestatements of witnesses recorded. The Assesseecarried the matter in appeal. The Commissioner(Appeals) deleted the additions. This was doneafter calling remand report on certain specificissues. The Revenue carried the appeal in appealbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed theview of the Commissioner by a detail order whichis challenged before us by the Revenue. 3 Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and having perused the documents onrecord, we are of the view that the Tribunal has arrived at conclusions which are purely factual innature. The Tribunal concurrently came to theconclusion that there was no evidence in supportof the additions made by the Assessing Officerwhich was collected during search operations. Thedocuments relied upon by the Assessing Officerdid not clearly bring about the on moneytransactions. During the remand report the partiesto whom the property was sold were examinedwho clarified that no cash payments were made bythe Assessee bringing on record no contrarymaterial. In the absence of any perversity in thefactual findings of the Tribunal, we see noquestion of law arises. In the result, the Appealsare therefore dismissed.” 3.In the result, this appeal is also dismissed. (B.P.COLABAWALLA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….