So Far As The Question v. M/S Unique Buildtech Eng

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.167/2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, UdaipurVs. M/s. Unique Buildtech Eng. Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur DATE OF ORDER : 27.4.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. KK Bissa, for the appellant ... So far as the question no.1 and 2 proposed by the Revenueare concerned, those have already been adjudicated by this Court inCommissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. Harish Chand Ahuja (D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.203/2013), decided on 26.11.2014, as such,we don't find any just reason to re-examine the same in the instantappeal. With regard to the proposed question no.3, suffice tomention that the Commissioner of Income Tax after appreciatingthe entire material available on record, held as under :- “I have considered the submissions of theappellant as well as the findings of the A.O.Given in the assessment order. It is anundisputed fact that during the year thecontract receipts have been substantiallyincreased in comparison to the immediatelypreceding year which means the site of workof the appellant has spread over to other sitealso and therefore the site expenditures arebound to be higher than that of last year andthe A.O. Has not denied this fact in theassessment order. Further the expenditure atsite depend upon the various factors like,availability of materials to be used in the site,expenses on transportation of materials to the site side, availability of labours, increase in thecost of materials, diesel etc. Further, it is a factthat the A.O. Has admitted all other expansesas reasonable and genuine as he has neithercommented upon nor made any allowance outof other expenses. It is also not a case of theA.O. That the auditors have made adversecomments on the site expenditure claimed andthe A.O. Has noticed some serious defects inmaintaining the books of account except thatthe expenditure claimed under the head siteexpenses is not commensurating with thegross contract receipts. This is not a sufficientreasons for making such substantialdisallowance out of particular head. Further,from the assessment order, it appears that theA.O. Has not called for any explanation for theincrease in the site expenses. If he had askedfor such explanations, the appellant must haveexplained the reasons for such increase.” The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while accepting theappreciation of evidence made by the Commissioner of Income Taxalso considered it appropriate to allow sustained addition of Rs.7lacs as site expenses. The findings arrived at are based onadequate appreciation of evidence and, as such, the instant appealdoes not involve any substantial question of law that may warrantinterference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed. , J. , J.