Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Jabalpur v. M/S. Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR I.T.A. No.7/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Jabalpur Vs. M/s. Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief JusticeHon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, counsel for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R (02.01.2017) This is revenues appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct calling in question tenability of an order dated 31.7.2015 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in I.T.A.No.14/JBP/2012. The assessee herein is engaged in construction businessand for the assessment year in question i.e. 2006-07, the assessee had shownincome from M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. The original assessment order waspassed on 8.8.2007 and during the course of assessment proceedings for theassessment year 2007-08, it was noticed that aseesee has accounted for jobwork and received an amount of Rs.1.06 crore from Binani Cement pertainingto year 2006-07 in the assessment year 2007-08 and as the same was notaccounted for and reflected in the year 2006-07, an action has been taken forreopening of the assessment, the Tribunal having interfered for the same, thisappeal under Section 260-A. 2.In para 11 of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal aftergoing through the various judgments on the issue in hand and found thatasseee has accounted for the job work in question, which was already discussedin the original assessment order by the Assessing Officer and these facts wereconsidered in the order of assessment. It was found by the Tribunal that factswhich were indicated as reasons for reopening of amount were available for theconcerned assessment year and Assessing Officer having discussed the same inthe assessment order, there was no new material or information available, whichhad escaped assessment and therefore, it is found that the notice issued forreopening of assessment on the ground of “amount escaped assessment”having been not made out, the interference have been made. The learnedTribunal has dealt in detail various aspects of the matter and has recorded afinding to say that the material and document were already available before theAssessing Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that a case is made out toissue notice on account of escape of amount. This finding of fact based onconsideration of the material available on record is a reasonable finding and noquestion of law arises for consideration. 3.Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, the Tribunalhaving allowed the appeal of the assesee on due consideration, we are of theconsidered view that the tribunal has not committed any error. No question oflaw arises for consideration and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Acting Chief Justice (Smt. Anjuli Palo) Judge