Jyoti v. Jani

C/TAXAP/287/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 287 of 2018 ==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3VersusR.K. INDUSTRIES, ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 04/04/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.08.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “1.Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 51,10,131/- on account of gross profit made by the Assessing Officer? 2.Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 10,51,382/- on account of commission expenses made by the Assessing Officer? 3.Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs. 3,56,100/- on account of legal and professional fee made by the Assessing Officer?” C/TAXAP/287/2018 ORDER 2. Having perused the orders on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, we notice that all three questions are purely questions of facts. The Tribunal and the CIT(Appeals) concurrently held that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making the additions and disallownace. With respect to first question, the Tribunal while confirming the view of CIT (Appeals) recorded that during the appellate proceedings the remand report was called from the Assessing Officer to which no objections were raised. Through additional evidence the very basis for the Assessing Officer to reject the assessee's books was not doubted.learned counsel for the Revenue, we notice that all three questions are purely questions of facts. The Tribunal and the CIT(Appeals) concurrently held that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making the additions and disallownace. With respect to first question, the Tribunal while confirming the view of CIT (Appeals) recorded that during the appellate proceedings the remand report was called from the Assessing Officer to which no objections were raised. Through additional evidence the very basis for the Assessing Officer to reject the assessee's books was not doubted. 3. Regarding the second question, the Tribunal noted that the commission was admittedly paid to the assessee's agent. Commissioner found that the payments were genuine and there was supporting evidence.commission was admittedly paid to the assessee's agent. Commissioner found that the payments were genuine and there was supporting evidence. 4. With respect to third question the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 3.56 lacs on account of legal and professional fees was revenue expenditure.conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 3.56 lacs on account of legal and professional fees was revenue expenditure. 5. All issues are purely factual. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J)