Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. S.j. Kathawalla, Jj

27 itxa 1646 of 2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1646 OF 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 2 …Appellant versusM/s. Centaur Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Appellant. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 15th JULY, 2019 P.C.: 1.This Appeal is filed to challenge the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short). The following question is presented for ourconsideration : (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in not considering the sworn statements given by employees impromptu that the assessee company is engaged in taking 30% on moneyfor sale consideration of commercial spaces/residential flats ? 2.We have perused the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the Revenue. The Assessment Officer had made additions with the aid of statementsof the employees of the assessee's company which was subject to search. However,the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were of the opinion that there was no SSP 1/2 27 itxa 1646 of 2016.doc material on record to sustain the additions. In particular, the Tribunal whileconfirming the view of the Commissioner of Tax (Appeals), noted that except for thestatements of the said employees, there was no other material of involvement of onmoney. The employees had also recorded their statements. We see no error in theconcurrent findings of facts by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. No question oflaw arises. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. ) SSP 2/2