The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25, Mumbai v. Shri Sandeep M Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.321 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 25, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Shri Sandeep M Shah..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 13[th] March 2013 P.C. : Office objections waived. 2.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2008-09, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting labour charges ?law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting labour charges ? b)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the facts placed on record by the AO to show that these labour contractors were merely employees of the Respondent ?”law, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the facts placed on record by the AO to show that these labour contractors were merely employees of the Respondent ?” 3.The Tribunal by the impugned order while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) records a finding of fact that the payment was in fact made towards labour charges. This was on the basis that the parties to whom the payment of labor charges was paid appeared before the assessing officer and confirmed the receipt of payments. Moreover, in the subsequent assessment year i.e. assessment year 2009-10, the assessing officer has accepted the payments made to the parties as genuine payment after considering the reply filed by the parties in response to a notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the finding of fact arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that the parties are genuine and the payments made by the assessee was for business purposes. In these circumstances, since there is concurrent finding of fact of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and the Tribunal that the payment of labour charges were genuine payments, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)