Txa/2/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Raj Hospitality Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Income TaxAaykar Bhavam Patto Panaji, Goa.PAN : AACCS87556Q…...Appellant V e r s u s M/s Raj Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.,No. 201 & 202, Rizvi Sadan,Opposite Municipal Market,Panaji, Goa.PAN: …...Respondent Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram :-F. M. REIS &Z. A. HAQ, JJ.Date : 28th April, 2014 ORAL ORDER (Per F. M. Reis, J.) Heard Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2.The above Appeal inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside the Order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Panaji, in ITA No. 80/PNJ/2012. 3.Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondent-Assessee is carrying out business of hospitality by running and managing hotels and related activities. Returns were filed by the Respondent under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for the Assessing year 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs.39,00319/-. Thereafter, notice under Section 153C of the said Act was served on the Assessee on 29.08.2011 to file a return under Section 153C of the said Act which was subsequently filed declaring the same income. There was a search in the premises of one Sadiq Shaikh on 25.02.2010 and during the search and seizure operations, certain evidence was found and seized which indicated that certain amounts were transferred by Mr. Sadiq Shaikh to the Company and firms closely held by Mr. Monserrate. That during the search and seizure, evidence was recovered of passing on a total sum of Rs.26,58,16,250/- directly or indirectly to the entitles which were received by two different entities namely the Respondent herein and M/s. Good Earth Development. The Assessing Officer analysed the records and the chain of transactions and concluded that the sum shown as outstanding loan in the books of the Respondent-Assessee which is to be paid to Mr. Sadiq Shaikh are not genuine and is income of the Respondent-Assessee and it was added in the hands of the Assessee. The matter was carried by the Respondent-Assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who deleted the additions for the reasons stated at para 5.5 and 5.6 of the Order dated 14.08.2012. The Appellant-Revenue thereafter preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which came to be dismissed by the said impugned order along with the Cross objections filed by the Respondent-Assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that in the annual financial statement along with the returns of income for assessment year 2009-10, the Respondent-Assessee had shown unsecured loan of Rs. 16 crores which was duly shown in the Company's Account. It was also noted that in financial year 2009-10, the Respondent-Assessee has also shown unsecured loan to Rs.50 crores from Mr. Sadiq Shaikh in his books of account. The Tribunal also verified the documentary evidence and found that the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in holding that the Respondent-Assessee has taken a loan from Mr. Sadiq Shaikh by account payee cheque and the same has been duly accounted in the book of audited annual report. The Tribunal has also examined the confirmation letter and came to the conclusion that the CIT(A) was justified in holding the Respondent-Assessee has produced the confirmation letter of Sadiq Shaikh stating the manner in which the loan has been given to the Assessee. On the basis of the material on record and for other reasons as stated therein, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent-Assessee. Mr. Sadiq Shaikh in his books of account. The Tribunal also verified the documentary evidence and found that the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in holding that the Respondent-Assessee has taken a loan from Mr. Sadiq Shaikh by account payee cheque and the same has been duly accounted in the book of audited annual report. The Tribunal has also examined the confirmation letter and came to the conclusion that the CIT(A) was justified in holding the Respondent-Assessee has produced the confirmation letter of Sadiq Shaikh stating the manner in which the loan has been given to the Assessee. On the basis of the material on record and for other reasons as stated therein, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent-Assessee. 4.Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, was unable to point out any perversity in the findings of the Tribunal. The records reveal that the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal are based on material on record and nothing has been pointed out to us that any evidence produced by the Revenue Appellate was not considered by the authorities whilst passing the impugned Orders. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant has pointed out that the facts in the present case are similar to the facts which arise in Tax Appeal no. 1 of 2014, which has also been disposed of by this Court. The findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below, cannot be interfered by this Court unless there is perversity in such findings. 5.For the reasons stated in the Order disposed of in TXA no. 1 of 2014 and for the aforesaid reasons, we find that there are no substantial questions of law which arise in the present Appeal which require consideration by this Court. Hence, the Appeal stands rejected. (Z. A. HAQ, J.) (F. M. REIS, J.) arp/*