Itxa/1441/2016 Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4 v. M/S. Manav Builders Pvt. Ltd

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1441 OF 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4… Appellant V/s. M/s Manav Builders Pvt. Ltd.… Respondent --- Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.Mr.Ravindra Poojary i/by Mr.Ajaykumar Singh for theRespondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 22, 2019. P.C.:- 1.Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question is urged before us : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT was justifiedin deleting the addition on account ofestimation of profit on sales not recorded inthe books of accounts, without appreciatingthe fact that as per provisions of section132(4A), the presumptions are that (a) theseized documents found in the premises of theassessee belong to the assessee and (b) thecontents of the seized documents are true andthat the assessee had failed to rebut the abovepresumptions? Priya Soparkar 221 itxa 1441-16-o 2.Learned counsel for the parties point out that such issuecame for our consideration before this Court in Income Tax AppealNo.980 of 2016 and connected appeals. These appeals arose outof composite order of the Tribunal which is impugned in thepresent appeal also. While dismissing those appeals the Court inits order dated 8[th]January, 2019 has made followingobservations:- “2. The respondent assessed is a limitedCompany and is engaged in the business ofconstruction. The assessee was subjected tosearch and seizure operation carried out by theRevenue Authorities on 10[th] August, 2006pursuant to which notice under Section 153Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” forshort) was issued. The Assessing Officer madeadditions relying on the documents seizedduring search and the statements of witnessesrecorded. The Assessee carried the matter inappeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) deletedthe additions. This was done after callingremand report on certain specific issues. TheRevenue carried the appeal in appeal beforethe Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the viewof the Commissioner by a detail order which ischallenged 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 Tribunalhas arrived at conclusions which are purelyfactual in nature. The Tribunal concurrentlycame to the conclusion that there was noevidence in support of the additions made by Priya Soparkar the Assessing Officer which was collectedduring search operations. The documentsrelied upon by the Assessing Officer did notclearly bring about the on money transactions.During the remand report the parties to whomthe property was sold were examined whoclarified that no cash payments were made bythe Assessee bringing on record no contrarymaterial. In the absence of any perversity inthe factual findings of the Tribunal, we see noquestion of law arises. In the result, theAppeals are therefore dismissed.” 3.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….