9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 891 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80IA - non factual evidence of bogus and fabricated sales - ITAT allowed claim - Held that - We note that both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal have rendered findings of fact that there has been no bogus sales of AH to M/s. JPL and M/s. JIL. Besides the impugned order further reveals the fact that the alleged undisclosed income has been disclosed in the accounts filed for the respective assessment years. The aforesaid findings of fact are not shown by Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue as in any manner perverse or arbitrary. Nor the reliance by the impugned order on the decision of this Court in Vikram Doshi (2002 (2) TMI 51 - BOMBAY High Court ) and Shamlal Gurbani (2000 (2) TMI 37 - BOMBAY High Court ) as being inapplicable to the present facts. In the above view as the finding is one of fact, not shown to be perverse the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction under Section 80IA for block period and part period from 1996-97 to 2001-02. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning the deduction under Section 80IA for the block period and part period from 1996-97 to 2001-02. The Revenue raises a substantial question of law questioning the correctness of allowing the deduction without considering the factual evidence of bogus sales. 2. During a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on March 14, 2002, no incriminating documents were found at the premises of the respondent. The Assessing Officer relied on a statement by Mr. N.C. Mehta to allege that sales claimed for deduction under Section 80IA were bogus. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under Section 158BC of the Act based on this statement. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found, by order dated May 11, 2012, that the sales were not bogus, leading to the allowance of the respondent's appeal. 4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s order, stating that there were no bogus sales to the related companies. The order emphasized that the income was disclosed in regular books of accounts during the regular assessment, hence not qualifying for block assessment under Section 158BC. The Tribunal relied on previous court decisions to support its findings. 5. Both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal concluded that there were no bogus sales and that the alleged undisclosed income was reflected in the filed accounts for the respective assessment years. The findings were deemed not perverse or arbitrary, and the reliance on previous court decisions was considered appropriate. As the issue was one of fact and not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 6. In conclusion, the appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal regarding the deduction under Section 80IA for the specified period was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
