Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 v. Reliance Michigan Jv-Mithi River

Digitally signedUDAYby UDAYSHIVAJIJAGTAPSHIVAJIDate:JAGTAP2022.03.3114:31:55+0530 - Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -25 .. Appellant Vs. Reliance Michigan JV-Mithi River .. Respondent ..... Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. P.A. Narayanan for the appellant Ms. Arati Vissanji i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent ….. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & N.R. BORKAR, J.J. DATED : 25[th] MARCH, 2022 P.C. 1.Following substantial questions of law are proposed in theappeal :- “A. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in upholdingthe order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of profits ofRs.1,11,31,669/- shown by M/s. Relcon Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. and Rs.1,80,83,700/- shown by M/s. Michigan Engineerss hands on account of case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in upholdingthe order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of profits ofRs.1,11,31,669/- shown by M/s. Relcon Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. and Rs.1,80,83,700/- shown by M/s. Michigan EngineersPvt. Ltd. made by AO in assessee’s hands on account ofdiversion of profits of the assessee-firm to its two partners? B.Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in upholdingthe order of CIT(A) in deleting the total addition ofRs.11,52,11,105/- made in assessee’s hands on account ofbogus expenses claimed in the accounts of M/s. Relcon InfraProjects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Michigan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. onthe ground that the AO of the assessee-firm had no jurisdiction to examine the genuineness of these expenses inthe hands of the assessee-firm? 2.We have considered impugned order of Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT) pronounced on 26.4.2017 and we do not find anyperversity or reason to interfere.Tribunal (ITAT) pronounced on 26.4.2017 and we do not find anyperversity or reason to interfere. 3.As regards first question of law proposed, profits which AssessingOfficer was wanting to add to the profits of respondent, havebeen shown by two partners in their accounts which have beenaccepted and separate assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).Officer was wanting to add to the profits of respondent, havebeen shown by two partners in their accounts which have beenaccepted and separate assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 4.If some amount is also added to the income in the hands ofrespondent, it would create a situation of double taxation. Inother words, same amount will be taxed in the hands of twoassesses which is not permissible.respondent, it would create a situation of double taxation. Inother words, same amount will be taxed in the hands of twoassesses which is not permissible. 5.As regards second question of law proposed, disbursement ofexpenses claimed are by the partner of assessee company in theirreturns. Whether expenses claimed by the partners are genuine,can be the subject matter of examination and assessment only inthe hands of those partners and not in the hands of respondent.This is the view CIT(A) as well as ITAT have taken and we are inagreement with this view.expenses claimed are by the partner of assessee company in theirreturns. Whether expenses claimed by the partners are genuine,can be the subject matter of examination and assessment only inthe hands of those partners and not in the hands of respondent.This is the view CIT(A) as well as ITAT have taken and we are inagreement with this view. 5.As regards second question of law proposed, disbursement ofexpenses claimed are by the partner of assessee company in theirreturns. Whether expenses claimed by the partners are genuine,can be the subject matter of examination and assessment only inthe hands of those partners and not in the hands of respondent.This is the view CIT(A) as well as ITAT have taken and we are inagreement with this view.expenses claimed are by the partner of assessee company in theirreturns. Whether expenses claimed by the partners are genuine,can be the subject matter of examination and assessment only inthe hands of those partners and not in the hands of respondent.This is the view CIT(A) as well as ITAT have taken and we are inagreement with this view. 6.In our view, the ITAT has not committed any perversity or appliedincorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts andcircumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied todecide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that questions asincorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts andcircumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied todecide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that questions as pressed raises any substantial questions of law. 7.The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as tocosts. costs. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)