Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal v. M/S Daulatram Industries

I.T.A. No.31/2017 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s Daulatram Industries) Jabalpur, Dated : 02-01-2018 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sapan Usrethe, learned counsel for therespondent. This appeal has been filed by the appellant beingaggrieved by order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in I.T.A. No.436/Ind/2014. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing forthe appellant that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal filed by the appellant simply on theground that the Assessing OfÏcer has deviated from thefinding that had been accepted by him in respect ofdeclared gross profit for the previous years withoutassigning any reason for the same. It is submitted that inview of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the caseof Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, 193 ITR 321 SC, as the lawin this regard is settled to the effect that the assessmentmade for one year is final only for that year and cannot be afinal and binding precedent for subsequent assessmentyears, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should haveexamined the orders passed by the Assessing OfÏcer as wellas the other authorities on merits instead of simplydismissing the appeal on this fact. The substantialquestions of law in this regard have been proposed in theappeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it isobserved that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on merits and not just on the ground that the Assessing Authority hasdeviated from the accepted declared gross profit withoutassigning any reason. It is observed that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalhas taken note of the fact that the respondent Assessee hastwo units, one at Bhopal and the other at Haridwar and thatboth of them are manufacturing different products which aresold to the Railways and it is on this count that thepercentage of profit varied between the two units and thisvariation in profit has been accepted by the AssessingOfÏcers in the previous years after examining all facts anddocuments on record. Having perused the impugned order, we do not findany substantial question of law arising for adjudication inthe appeal as the fact as to whether the profit of a unit wasmore or less, is a pure question of fact which cannot begone into or decided by this Court in the appeal. In the circumstances, we do not find any substantialquestion of law arising for adjudication in the appeal andtherefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (R. S. Jha) J U D G E (Nandita Dubey) J U D G E pp.Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2018.01.03 11:44:35 +05'30'