9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, when pure findings of fact are being assailed by the Revenue. This court cannot reappreciate and reappraise the said findings of fact. The Tribunal's exercise in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and his estimation cannot be interfered with by us at the behest of the Revenue without any perversity being demonstrated. The Revenue's estimation on the higher side and based on the Assessing Officer's order was rightly termed as abnormal and unreasonable. No substantial question of law. - Decided against revenue. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI S.P.DESHMUKH, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Pinto For the Respondent : Mr. Firoze B. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se reasons, he submits that the appeal be admitted. 3. Upon a careful reading of the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto. In this case, on the own saying of the Revenue, the assessee is a contractor and undertaking works for public body, namely, the municipal corporation. A return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed by him on October 31, 2007, declaring a net taxable income of ₹ 1,39,64,580. The assessee represents a share of profit from a partnership firm of M/s. Rameshwar Enterprises in addition to his generating income from the proprietary concern, namely, M/s. Ratansingh and Brothers. He is stated to be a civil contractor. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. 6. The matter was carried by the assessee in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee was unable to furnish proper addresses of the lenders but then subsequently filed some documents. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) worked out a peak credit of ₹ 44,40,000. With regard to the addition made on account of purchase of material and deductions claimed on account of sub-contract charges paid, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) took cognizance of the grievance of the Revenue that there were several irregularities in the accounts. However, he estimated the income of the assessee at 8 per cent. of the turnover at ₹ 1,69,17,830. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imation of net profit rate of 8 per cent. is justified. 8. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal, when pure findings of fact are being assailed by the Revenue. This court cannot reappreciate and reappraise the said findings of fact. The Tribunal's exercise in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and his estimation cannot be interfered with by us at the behest of the Revenue without any perversity being demonstrated. The Revenue's estimation on the higher side and based on the Assessing Officer's order was rightly termed as abnormal and unreasonable. In these circumstances, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
