9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1074 - HC - Income TaxDeletion of disallowance of transport charges Held that - The court Concurred its decision with the findings of the Tribunal - Revenue did not dispute the fact that the question as regards the amount of transport charges incurred by the assessee is a pure question of fact - He is unable to show as to why is the order passed by the learned Tribunal perverse - finding of fact cannot be interfered with just because the revenue chooses to prefer an appeal without disclosing any reason as to why or how is the order of the learned Tribunal is perverse Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Disallowance of transport charges claimed by the assessee.
The judgment involves the disallowance of transport charges claimed by the assessee in the construction business. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the claimed transport charges, adding it back to the assessee's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the appeal of the assessee, citing a previous decision by the Hon'ble ITAT in favor of the appellant regarding transport charges. The revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue was already settled in a previous decision. The revenue further appealed the Tribunal's decision, questioning the justification of directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance without sufficient evidence. The appellant's advocate did not contest that the amount of transport charges was a factual matter. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered with merely because the revenue appeals without demonstrating the perversity of the Tribunal's order. The judgment highlights the importance of factual findings in tax disputes and the limited scope for interference with concurrent findings. It underscores the need for concrete evidence to support claims and the significance of precedent in determining similar issues. The judgment also emphasizes the principle that an appeal must provide substantial reasoning to challenge a decision effectively.
|
