Taxc/57/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Responbent Shri Ambika Prasad Shukla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPURTAX CASE N0.[^][ -^"]/2012m^ymAPPELLANTCommissionerofIncomeTax, Rai'purvsRESPONbENTShriAmbikaPrasadShukla,ProprietorM/s•a•^•?:^^-^'**^.Pawan Engineering Works,Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG).^^$^-^--•"Aa^®AAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THEINCOMETAX ACT.1961 ^^<.:..^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J TaxCaseNo.57of2012 f— JUDGEMENT(25thJuly,2013) 1. This is a tax appeal against the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur (the Tribunal) allowing the appealof ShriAmbikaPrasadShukla(the Assessee)inrespect of theAssessmentYear (AY) 2005-06. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee is a contractor and works for Larsen & Turbo. He filedhis return showing his Gross Profits (GP) at the rate of 9.79% ascompared to GP of 12.4% in the preceding year. However, the AssessingOfficer (the AO) after considering the detailed enquiry accepted the GPrate of 9.79% by his order dated 15.03.2010. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A) revised theaforesaid order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)on the ground that the issues were not examined by the AO in properperspective. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal beforethe Tribunal.It was allowed on 10.02.2012.Hence, the present taxappeal by the Income Tax Department (the Department). THE DECISION 5. We have heard counsel for the Appellant. 6.This appeal was admitted on 21.08.2012 on the followjng substantial-^-question of law: n "^^&^ subbu 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no case hasbeen made out for invocation of powers under Section 263 ofthe Income Tax Act by the Commissioner arising out of theorder passed by the Assessing Officer.' 7.The Tribunal after considering all the aspects of the matter hasrecorded a finding that the AO after considering the detailed enquiry hasreached the conclusion. This is a finding of fact and on this finding theorder of the AO could not be revised under section 263 of the Act. 8.In view of above, the question is answered against the Department. The tax case has no merit. It is dismissed. Sd/-Pritinker DiwakarJudge Sd/- ChiefJustice