Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 32 v. M/S Uni Packs (India

1 / 3 05-ITXA-194-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.194 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 32 .... Appellant versus M/s Uni Packs (India) ….... ... Respondent Mr.Arvind Pinto, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Arvind Pinto, Advocate for Appellant. Ms.Asifa Khan, Advocate for Respondent.Ms.Asifa Khan, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.: 30[th] APRIL, 2019. DATE P.C. : 1. This Appeal is filed by the revenue to challenge the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short). Following question is presented for our consideration; “6.1Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case,was the Tribunal justified in deleting the additionmade u/s 69C without appreciating that explanationgiven by the Assessee regarding the payments madeto the “alleged suppliers” was not in the opinion ofthe AO satisfactory?was the Tribunal justified in deleting the additionmade u/s 69C without appreciating that explanationgiven by the Assessee regarding the payments madeto the “alleged suppliers” was not in the opinion ofthe AO satisfactory? 6.2 Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case,was the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditurewas accounted in the books of accounts sufficient todelete addition made under Section 69; whereasentries in the books do not indicate that the supplierssupplied the said goods?was the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditurewas accounted in the books of accounts sufficient todelete addition made under Section 69; whereasentries in the books do not indicate that the supplierssupplied the said goods? 6.3 Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case,was the decision of Tribunal deleting the additionjustified in view of the statements of the parties thatthey did not supply any goods, but only gaveaccommodation entries for a small commission – astatement that remains uncontroverted by theAssessee?was the decision of Tribunal deleting the additionjustified in view of the statements of the parties thatthey did not supply any goods, but only gaveaccommodation entries for a small commission – astatement that remains uncontroverted by theAssessee? 6.4Whether Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in notfollowing the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad HighCourt in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Swaroop Jain,55 Taxmann 378 which is identical to this case?following the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad HighCourt in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Swaroop Jain,55 Taxmann 378 which is identical to this case? 2. Issue pertains to additions made by the AssessingOfficer in the hands of the Respondents-Assessee under section69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the addition, interalia, onOfficer in the hands of the Respondents-Assessee under section69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the addition, interalia, on 3 / 3 05-ITXA-194-17.odt the grounds that the Assessing Officer relied only on thematerial collected by the Sales Tax Department. He relied onsubmissions of witnesses without offering them for cross-examination. There was no independent evidence that theassessee’s suppliers were not genuine. The assessee had alsopointed out that the payments were made through cheque andfurther the department has accepted the sales out of thepurchases made by the assessee. On such grounds CIT (Appeals)and Tribunal were of the opinion that the Assessing Officer wasnot justified in invoking section 69C of the Act. 3. We do not find any error in view of the Tribunal. Findings of the facts are concurrent. Entire issue is based onappreciation of evidence on record. No perversity in the findingis pointed out. No question of law therefore arise. Appeal isdismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)