2019 (9) TMI 816 - HC - Income Tax

Substantial question of law or fact - addition on account of difference of job work - non production of day to day stock/production records by assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), the correctness of the claim of the assessee remained unverifiable - addition of suppressed production - HELD THAT - Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that none of the two questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial questions of law. Both the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. The Revenue, after due consideration of all the relevant aspects, has recorded the finding of fact in favour of the assessee - no substantial question of law involved in the present Tax Appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
2. Deletion of addition on account of difference of job work and suppressed production.

Analysis:
1. The High Court heard the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Revenue raised two questions of law regarding the deletion of additions related to job work and suppressed production. The questions revolved around the non-production of day-to-day stock/production records by the assessee, leading to unverifiable claims. However, after reviewing the case, the Court found that these questions were purely factual and not substantial questions of law. The Revenue's contentions were considered, and it was concluded that the findings favored the assessee.

2. The Court determined that the issues raised by the Revenue did not amount to substantial questions of law but were based on factual considerations. The findings of the Tribunal in favor of the assessee were upheld after a thorough examination of the relevant aspects. The Court emphasized that the questions posed by the Revenue were not substantial in nature and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed as there was no substantial question of law involved in the case. The decision was made after a comprehensive review of the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.