The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji v. M/S. Putzmeister India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VersusM/S. PUTZMEISTER INDIA PVT. LTD., ... Appellant ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the appellant. -Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:26th September, 2016 P.C.: Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for theappellant. 2. The above appeal challenges the Order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 22/11/2013 and theOrder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated10/06/2015 whereby the appeals preferred by the appellant hereincame to be dismissed. 3. Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for theappellant has taken us through the assessment carried out by theAssessing Officer to point out that the expenses incurred towardsadvertisement amounting in a sum of Rs.22,42,303/- were found unreasonable considering the expenses incurred during the previous years. The learned Counsel further points out that there is acategorical finding arrived at by the Assessing Officer to the effectthat such expenses could not be allowed considering the huge amountclaimed and the value of the business activities of therespondent-assessee. The learned Counsel further points out that theCIT(A) has erroneously justified such expenses, on the basis of theagreement produced on record. The learned Counsel further pointsout that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has confirmed thefindings of the CIT(A) without considering that there was acategorical finding by the Assessing Officer to the effect that such expenses were doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that there are substantialquestions of law on that count which require consideration in thepresent appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have also gonethrough the record. The learned CIT(A) while examining thechallenge to the disallowing of such expenses claimed by therespondent has come to the conclusion that as the appellant-Revenuehas failed to challenge the authenticity of the vouchers produced bythe respondent, as well as the agreement between the parties, thequestion of disallowing such expenses would not arise. The CIT(A)has examined the materials on record to come to the conclusion thatthere was no challenge to the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the respondent which are stated to be towards advertisements. The ITAT, whilst examining the appeal preferred by the appellantshas confirmed such findings of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) to cometo the conclusion that as the appellant-Revenue has not disputed the genuineness of such payment, the question of disallowing suchexpenses would not at all arise. In such circumstances, we find thatthe fact finding Authorities have categorically come to theconclusion that the amounts were actually spent towards advertisements as the genuineness thereof was not disputed by theappellant and, as such, there are no substantial questions which arise for consideration in the above appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants,based on the material on record, was unable to point out that suchfindings of fact arrived at by the Authorities were by misreading or overlooking any specific material which would disclose that the genuineness of such payments were doubtful. In suchcircumstances, as there is no perversity in such findings of fact, thereare no substantial questions of law for consideration in the presentappeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal stands accordingly rejected. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J.