Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Dehradun vs. United Concept and Solution Pvt Ltd
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had found no evidence of unvouched, inflated, or bogus expenses, nor any indication that the expenditure was for non-business purposes. The CIT(A) reasoned that suspicion alone cannot form the basis for a sustainable addition. The ITAT had also relied on case law to uphold the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun, appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who deleted an addition of Rs. 75,16,013/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made this addition because the assessee's net profit decreased from Rs. 2,52,05,645/- to Rs. 1,81,18,370/- (total income) despite an increase in turnover from Rs. 22,84,22,128/- to Rs. 26,01,09,470/-. The AO attributed this to an increase in 'Profit Monitoring Expenses' and 'Erection and Commissioning Charges'. The assessee explained that projects were located at different sites. The AO rejected this explanation, deeming it illogical for a prudent person to increase business for less profit. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the AO had not provided evidence of unvouched, inflated, or bogus expenses, nor any evidence of expenditure for non-business purposes.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in law and facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 75,16,013/- made by the AO from 'Project Monitoring Expenses' and 'Erection and Commissioning Charges', considering the assessee's failure to specify the reason for lower profit despite increased turnover before the AO? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in law and facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 75,16,013/- made by the AO from 'Project Monitoring Expenses' and 'Erection and Commissioning Charges', despite the assessee failing to furnish a satisfactory explanation regarding these expenses? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the reduced profit despite increased turnover and specifically for the increase in 'Project Monitoring Expenses' and 'Erection and Commissioning Charges'. The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Income Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2018
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Dehradun
...Appellant
Vs.
United Concept & Solution Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated: 22nd June, 2018
Coram: Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J. Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)
In this Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue calls in question the order of the Tribunal, by which the Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in turn, has deleted addition of Rs. 75,16,013/-. The Assessee, it appears, filed the return on the total income of Rs. 1,81,18,370/-. The Assessing Officer took the view that the turnover of the Assessee had gone up from Rs. 22,84,22,128/- in the previous year to Rs. 26,01,09,470/- in the year in question, but the net profit had come down from Rs. 2,52,05,645/-. Two items, namely, the Profit Monitoring Expenses and the Erection and Commissioning Charges, according to the Assessing Officer, had actually gone up during the year in question, and hence it was that the net profit had suffered a diminution. The Assessee gave the explanation, when he was called upon to explain the alleged abnormal increase in the two expenses, that most of the projects, in the year in question, were carried on different locations. The Assessing Officer took the view that no prudent man would increase his business so as to get less profit and, therefore, the explanation of the Assessee was rejected and addition
2 was made in a sum of Rs. 75,16,013/-. It is this addition, which has been deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in fact, noted that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record a single instance of expenses not being vouched properly; any instance of any of these expenses being artificially inflated or being of a bogus nature. He also noted that there is no allegation that the expenditure has occurred out of any other activity, nor any instance of the expenditure being used for purposes other than business was brought on record. No suspicion can be the basis of a sustainable addition further reasoned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal has also adverted to case law in this regard and sustained the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The substantial questions of law, which have been projected in the appeal memorandum, are as follows:
“1. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 75,16,013/- made by the A.O. out of “Project Monitoring Expenses” and “Erection and Commissioning Charges” ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to specify the reason of less profit before the A.O. in the year under consideration although turnover went up substantially as compared to previous year?
Whether the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi has erred in law and on the facts by deleting the disallowance of RS. 75,16,013/- made by the A.O. out of “Project Monitoring Expenses” and “Erection and Commissioning Charges” despite the assessee failing to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding these expenses?
We heard Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, we do not see any substantial question of law, as arising out from the order,
3 as projected. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to cost.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.) 22.06.2018
2018 Rahul
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
