The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd

$~36 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 809/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. versus METSO MINERALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD...... RespondentThrough:Smt. Premlata Bansal, Sr. Adv. withMrs. Rachana Swahney andMr.Abhishek Kumar, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%06.09.2019 C.M. No. 40078/2019 (Delay) 1. Issue Notice. Mrs. Rachana Swahney, learned counsel for the respondentaccepts notice. 2. By way of this application, the appellant seeks condonation of 20 daysdelay in filing of the present appeal. Mrs. Bansal, Sr. Counsel states that thedelay is in fact 59 days. 3. Be that it as may, we condone the delay and the application standsdisposed of. ITA 809/2019 4. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the order dated18.01.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafterreferred as ‘the Tribunal’) in I.T.A. No. 6681/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenditure to the tuneof Rs.2,19,48,179/- which was 1/10[th]of total expenditure claimed ofRs.21,94,81,778/- on the ground that the Assessee had not maintainedseparate records in relation to the element of personal use expenditure. 5. The CIT (Appeals) as well as ITAT had reversed the said finding of facton appreciation of evidence. In view of the concurrent and consistent findingof fact on the orders of the CIT (Appeals) as well as ITAT, we are notinclined to interfere with the same as the issue raised by the appellant ispurely factual and no question much less substantial question of law ariseson that aspect. 6. The Assessing Officer had also disallowed the interest to the tune ofRs.1,38,24,367/- under Section (36)(1) (iii) of the Act. In this respect as wellupon appreciation of evidence, learned CIT (appeals) and ITAT hadreversed the finding and set aside the said disallowances made by theAssessing Officer. The ground of challenge on this aspect is again purelyfactual. 7. For the abovesaid reasons, we are of the view that no questions arises forthe consideration since the issue raised is purely factual, the appeal isaccordingly, dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2019 Pallavi SANJEEV NARULA, J