9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants was found to be untenable, the surplus area was transferred to the assessee for consideration. Subsequently, the surplus area was permitted to be dealt with, and the assessee dealt with it commercially. ITAT has not found that the assessee had committed any offence. No material on record suggests that the assessee had committed any offence concerning these 36 tenements. There was no dispute about the assessee incurring the expenditure towards construction. In such circumstances, there was no question of disallowance of the assessee's impugned expenses. The findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed by the ITAT do not suffer from any perversity. The ITAT has also applied the legal principles and followed the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of perversity. No substantial question of law. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr Suresh Kumar,. For the Respondent: Mr Sashi Tulsiyan, i/b, Mr P C Tripathi,. PC:- (PER M S SONAK, J) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal s (ITAT) judgment and order dated 31 October 2016 dismissing the Revenue s Appeal against an order dated 24 January 2011 made by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Mr Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that this Appeal may be admitted on the following questions, which, according to him, are substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has disallowed such claims. He, therefore, submitted that the assessing officer was justified in adding an amount of Rs. 6,67,67,532/- under Section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submitted that since the action of the assessee virtually amounted to an offence, there was no question of the assessee claiming any benefits towards the alleged proportionate expenses incurred to construct tenements for such 36 bogus tenants. 6. Mr Tulsiyan, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that no questions of law, much less any substantial questions of law, arise in this Appeal. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the project was not completed by 31 March 2008, and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee dealt with it commercially. 10. The ITAT has not found that the assessee had committed any offence. No material on record suggests that the assessee had committed any offence concerning these 36 tenements. There was no dispute about the assessee incurring the expenditure towards construction. In such circumstances, there was no question of disallowance of the assessee's impugned expenses. 11. The findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed by the ITAT do not suffer from any perversity. The ITAT has also applied the legal principles and followed the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC). 12. For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the first question as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
