9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Appeal No. 1545/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Nemo. ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral): This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) emanates from order dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of Pearl Intercontinental Limited and relates to Assessment Year 1994-95. 2. By order dated 16th August, 2011, the following two questions of law were framed:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law deleting the addition of Rs.82,73,328/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred appeals in the said cases before the High Court. The High Court dismissed these appeals by a detailed order dated 28th September, 2012 holding that the factual findings recorded by the tribunal were not perverse. The decision of the High Court dated 28th September, 2012 is in ITA No. 999/2006 in the case of M/s M.S. International Limited, ITA No. 210/2007 in the case of M/s M.S. Shoes East Limited and ITA No. 575/2007 in the case of M/s Pearl Intercontinental Limited. 5. This decision is applicable to the present year also. The High Court while disposing of the appeal has referred to various documentary evidence, which were filed before the Assessing Officer, which prove that in fact transaction had taken place and was genuine. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve incurred manufacturing expenses which was not accounted in its books. Therefore, an addition of Rs.59,87,998/- is being made to the income of the assessee. 7. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not agree with the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and deleted the addition observing that similar addition had been made in the earlier year, i.e., Assessment Year 1993-94 but was deleted by the tribunal recording as under:- The next common issue for consideration is with regard to the addition on account of unexplained expenditure in the hand of PIL and a corresponding addition of unaccounted receipts in the hands of MSSE. On this issue we find that there is no dispute with regard to the use of manufacturing facilities b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd indicates the half-hearted attempt to make the addition. The case and the stand of the respondent-assessee was that they had used machinery of their sister concern and had not paid any money for the same. No further attempt was made by the Assessing Officer to verify the facts whether the sister concern had the requisite machinery or not and whether the electricity bills of the said sister concern justify the stand of the respondent-assessee. Similar disallowance was made in the Assessment Year 1993-94 by the Assessing Officer but was deleted by the tribunal. Revenue had preferred an appeal before the High Court being ITA No. 575/2007. The said appeal was admitted to hearing on 3rd October, 2008, but no specific question of law for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
