Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 v. Shree Matangi Woven Sack Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 796 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 797 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE ====================================== ======================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 VersusSHREE MATANGI WOVEN SACK PVT LTD ====================================== Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ======================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 09/07/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0]As common question of law and facts arise in both these Tax Appeals, they are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. [2.0]Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.931 & 997/Ahd for the Assessment Year 2010-11 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/-, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the CIT(A)’s order restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/-? [3.0]Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,31,200/- and after making the addition on account of estimated Net Profit of the assessee at 20% of the total turnover subsequently the penalty of Rs.7,39,630/- was levied vide penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. On the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee, by giving cogent reasons and on appreciating the material on record, restricted the addition from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover i.e. Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/- and directed the learned Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty on the correct amount of concealed income. Feelingaggrievedand dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in quantum appeal restricting the addition made on account of estimation from 20% to 0.5% and the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the penalty, revenue preferred Appeals before the learned Tribunal, being ITA Nos.931 & 997/Ahd. By the impugned common judgment and order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid Appeal. Hence, revenue is before this Court by way of present Tax Appeals. [4.0]We have heard Mrs Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. On considering the order passed by the learned CIT(A), which came to be confirmed by the learned Tribunal restricting the addition made on account of estimation of 20% to 0.5%, learned CIT(A) has given cogent reasons and on appreciation of material on record has restricted the addition on account of estimated Net Profit of the assessee at 0.5% of the total turnover. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal are on appreciation of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that any question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals as proposed by the revenue. Under the circumstances and in view of the above no substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals and both the Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) siji (A.Y. KOGJE, J.)