2015 (7) TMI 480 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - disallowance of various expenses on account of earth filling - CIT(A) after hearing the parties allowed the appeal partly also confirmed by ITAT - Held that - Revenue/appellant, has not disputed the fact that the assessing officer himself made an observation that some earth filling work was done, that is to say, the claim of the assessee was partly accepted by the assessing officer though he disallowed the expenditure in toto. The assessing officer s order was examined by the CIT(A) and he was of the opinion that the expenditure was partly allowable. The view has been accepted and confirmed by the learned Tribunal. On a question of fact, both the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal have agreed. Revenue is unable to show us as to why the view taken by them is perverse nor is it his case that the view taken by them is not based on evidence. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses including earth filling cost
2. Disallowance of other expenses
3. Nature and computation of addition made under valuation of stock
4. Disallowance of labor charges and payments
5. Deletion of addition on account of bogus purchase of building material
6. Validity of the impugned order

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged a judgment regarding the assessment year 2007-08, where disallowances were made on various expenses, including a sum for earth filling. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance of the earth filling cost to 20%. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The assessing officer accepted that some earth filling work was done, and the CIT(A) found the expenditure partly allowable, a view confirmed by the Tribunal. The Court found no perversity in their decision based on evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The assessing officer disallowed various expenses which were partly allowed by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Court found no grounds for the decision to be considered perverse or unsupported by evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The addition made under valuation of stock was disputed, but the Tribunal's interpretation was upheld as not erroneous by the Court. No evidence of perversity or lack of basis was presented, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

4. Disallowance of labor charges and payments was partially upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Court found no perversity in their decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of evidence to the contrary.

5. The deletion of the addition on account of bogus purchase of building material was challenged, but the Tribunal's decision was upheld by the Court. No evidence of perversity or lack of basis was presented, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

6. The overall validity of the impugned order was questioned, with the Court emphasizing the lack of perversity in the decisions made by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Court found no grounds to set aside the order and dismissed the appeal accordingly.