The Commissioner Of Income Tax. ........ Appelant v. M/S. Samriz Constructions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.45/2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ........ APPELANT.VERSUS M/S. SAMRIZ CONSTRUCTIONS. ....... RESPONDENT. Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 31[st] March, 2008. P.C.:- Two different assessees were subjected to an assessment completed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had been maintaining books of account in the ordinary course of their business. They had availed of loans from the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank and the interest expenditure attributable to the loans had been claimed by the assessee as expenditure. In the block assessments, the Assessing Officer had re-examined the issue and came to a different conclusion other than already arrived at. In case of Samriz Constructions, the amount attributed is Rs.11,71,500/- and in the case of Aisha Constructions, the amount is Rs.17,32,500/-. They were treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. On an appeal being filed by the assessee, the ITAT allowed the appeal and in paragraphs 7 and 8 observed as under: “ 7.The search has not resulted in finding any incriminating materials which showed that the entries made by the assessees in the books of account regarding the loans and interest are false or untrue. Nothing has been recovered in the course of search so as to unsettle the entries reflected in the books of account and the statements of account filed before the Department. The fact that the assessee has given loans to the other parties, are also well recorded in the books of account. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is crystal clear that the search has not brought out any materials to establish any undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee in so far as it related to the disallowance of interest expenditure. What in fact the Assessing Office has done in these two cases is that, he has made a review of the case which was already examined by him in past. He has made a re-examination of the same details, which were already available before him. The question of admissibility of the interest expenditure need not be matter of block assessment, as those particulars were otherwise very much available with the assessee even before the search and very much known to the Department.” 2.From a bare reading of the above two paragraphs, it is evident that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal primarily on facts, including that of the Assessing Authority, indicates that the entries were false and were disclosed on the basis of the information/ documents subsequently produced to term it as undisclosed income. It was merely a finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. That was a finding recorded on its re-examination. Thus, coming to a different conclusion on the basis of the said record, is not a question of law, much less the substantial question of law. No question of law arises in the matter. Appeal dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE ssm. JUDGE