9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 224 - HC - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA - Sunstantial question of law or fact - ITAT deleted addition as no incriminating material was found during the course of search - HELD THAT - An appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression substantial question of law is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law inter alia in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence or when the evidence has been misread. The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT therewith by this Court is not warranted. For the aforesaid reasons we have no hesitation in holding that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of this court. Revenue appeal dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The appeal raised several substantial questions of law concerning the deletion of various additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issues presented were: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,70,88,927/- related to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the IT Act, on the basis that no incriminating material was found during the search. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,70,88,927/- by ignoring that the assessee was not engaged in "Development work" but was rather a "works contractor," thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000/- made for illegal payments to government functionaries. 4. Whether the ITAT rightly deleted additions of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- and Rs. 70,00,000/- for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 under Section 40A(3) based on seized documents and statements. 5. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition for unrecorded cash transactions, despite the assessee's admission of undisclosed income. 6. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,62,077/- related to bogus sub-contract payments. 7. Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,02,643/- for unaccounted sale of GITI based on seized documents and statements. 8. Whether the ITAT's findings were perverse, failing to consider relevant facts and legal positions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 80IA The legal framework under Section 80IA of the IT Act allows deductions for profits derived from eligible businesses. The Court examined whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,70,88,927/- on the grounds that no incriminating material was found during the search. The Revenue argued that incriminating documents, such as seized Tally accounts, indicated non-maintenance of separate books for eligible business, which was a requirement as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. The Court noted that the ITAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., which held that in the absence of incriminating material, the AO could not reassess completed assessments. The ITAT found no substantial evidence to support the AO's addition, leading to its deletion. 2. Nature of Business under Section 80IA(4) The Revenue contended that the assessee was a "works contractor" and not engaged in "Development work," thus ineligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4). The ITAT, however, found that the AO's assessment lacked concrete evidence, as the assessee's activities did not fit the legislative exclusion of "works contracts." The ITAT's decision was supported by the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Katira Construction Ltd., which upheld the constitutional validity of the section's explanation. 3. Illegal Payments to Government Functionaries The deletion of Rs. 50,000/- for illegal payments was challenged by the Revenue, citing evidence of cash payments and admissions by a senior employee. The ITAT found the evidence insufficiently corroborated, applying the Supreme Court's "Human Probability" test from Sumati Dayal, which assesses whether the apparent is real. The ITAT concluded that the AO's findings were speculative and unsupported by substantial evidence. 4. Additions under Section 40A(3) The ITAT deleted additions for cash payments, citing a lack of corroborative verification by the AO. The Revenue argued that the ITAT failed to conduct a proper inquiry, as outlined in Jansampark advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. The ITAT noted that the retraction of statements by key individuals and the absence of supporting evidence rendered the AO's additions unsustainable. 5. Unrecorded Cash Transactions The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions for unrecorded transactions, despite the assessee's admission of undisclosed income. The ITAT found that the AO's reliance on the assessee's statement was insufficient without corroborative evidence, leading to the deletion of the additions. 6. Bogus Sub-Contract Payments The ITAT deleted additions related to payments to Shri Sushil Kumar Singhal, finding no evidence of subcontract work. The Revenue argued that the ITAT ignored material evidence and the "Human Probability" test. The ITAT concluded that the AO's findings were unsubstantiated and speculative. 7. Unaccounted Sale of GITI The ITAT deleted the addition for unaccounted sales, citing a lack of corroborative evidence from seized documents and statements. The Revenue's arguments were found unpersuasive, as the ITAT determined that the AO's findings lacked evidentiary support. 8. Alleged Perversity in ITAT's Findings The Revenue claimed that the ITAT's findings were perverse, failing to consider relevant facts and legal principles. The Court found no merit in these arguments, noting that the ITAT's decision was well-reasoned and based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order, as the issues raised were factual and lacked legal significance. The ITAT, as the final fact-finding authority, had not erred in its conclusions. The Court emphasized that the appeal was based on factual disputes, not permissible under Section 260A. The Court reiterated that an appeal under Section 260A requires a substantial question of law, not merely a disagreement with factual findings. The principles established in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. and Santosh Hazari were applied to determine the absence of substantial questions of law. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the ITAT's order and reinforcing the requirement for substantial questions of law in appeals under Section 260A.
|
