2023 (8) TMI 1075 - HC - Income Tax

Suppression of sales of iron ore - different sale figures found during seizure in an incriminating evidence as per law which has led the AO to calculate suppression of sales to 20% - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the contents reveals Tribunal found that in absence of any charge of evasion of royalty/tax, it cannot be presumed that there is any suppression of quantity of production from the mine or the purchase made by appellant from M/s Jai Minerals. The Tribunal also found that the findings leading to addition by the Assessing Officer are based on presumption rather than proof. Moreso, other findings rendered in the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned order reveal that they are based on factual disputes and, therefore, neither give rise to any substantial proposed question of law as proposed by the Revenue or otherwise. In the absence of any substantial question of law arising from the findings of Tribunal which are purely factual in nature, this Court declines admission to this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the decision of CIT(A) by deleting the addition made by the AO on account of suppression of sales of iron ore?
2. Whether the ITAT failed to consider relevant facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, leading to perversity in the order?
3. Whether different sale figures found during seizure constitute incriminating evidence justifying the calculation of suppression of sales?
4. Whether the Assessing Officer's calculation aligns with the law in comparison to the deletion by the ITAT?
5. Whether the ITAT erred in ignoring the law on the appreciation of evidence in the matter?
6. Whether the ITAT properly applied legal principles concerning the suppression of sales of iron ore?
7. Whether the ITAT overlooked the suppression rate of 20% in accordance with the law?
8. Whether the ITAT erred in mechanically upholding the decision of CIT(A) without considering the relevant law on evidence appreciation?

Comprehensive Details:
The primary issue in the case was whether the Tribunal (ITAT) erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (Appeal) to delete the addition of Rs. 69,18,07,576/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal based its decision on findings from other assessment years, where it was concluded that there was no evidence of evasion of royalty/tax or suppression of production quantity or purchases. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on presumption rather than concrete proof. The Tribunal's findings were factual in nature and did not give rise to any substantial question of law as proposed by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court declined admission to the appeal and dismissed it.