Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Shri Dilip Suryavanshi

PDF · subscribers
ITA/13/2014HC Madhya Pradesh19 March 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the sum of ₹3,34,16,321/- from the assessment were based on a due appreciation of the evidence and material on record. The Tribunal found no error committed by the authorities that warranted interference. It concluded that the finding was a pure question of fact, derived from the material adduced by the assessee, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the orders of the appellate authority and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal challenged the deletion of ₹3,34,16,321/- from the assessment of the respondent, Shri Dilip Suryavanshi, for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee, engaged in civil construction through his proprietary concern M/s Dilip Builders, had claimed this amount as labour expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses due to a lack of details for sundry creditors and their confirmations. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed the deletion, finding that the assessee had provided confirmations for 21 outstanding creditors, along with addresses and particulars for other persons, thereby explaining the expenses.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the deletion of ₹3,34,16,321/- claimed as labour expenses by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is a substantial question of law warranting interference by the Tribunal, considering the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the amount implies the assessee successfully argued that the expenses were adequately explained. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the deletion of the labour expenses was erroneous and that the concurrent orders of the appellate authorities, which allowed the deletion, were not based on a substantial question of law. The Revenue sought to challenge the factual findings of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A. No :: 13 / 2014

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Dilip Suryavanshi 19.03.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant. This is revenue’s appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 calling in question the concurrent orders passed by the appellate authority and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of permitting deletion of a sum of `3,34,16,321/- from the assessment order passed in the matter of assessing income of the respondent for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee submitted his return of income as an individual for the assessment year in question and showed a total income of `4,09,04,860/-. The appellant is engaged in the business of civil construction and owns a proprietary concern M/s Dilip Builders. On scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, the AO found that an amount of `3,34,16,321/- on account of labour expenses have been claimed for the assessment year, but as details of sundry creditors alongwith their confirmation were not available, the amount was disallowed. However, on an appeal being filed, the appellate authority found that the assessee has filed confirmation in respect of 21 outstanding creditors, had also given addresses and particulars of all other persons and confirmation were also filed. Finding the assessee to have explained expenses to the tune of `3,34,16,321/-, both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal has deleted this amount. The concurrent findings in the matter of deletion as ordered by the authorities concerned is based on due appreciation of the evidence and material that came on record. In doing so, no error

2 has been committed by the authorities, which warrants interference in the matter. The finding is a pure question of fact based on the material adduced by the assessee and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the matter. Accordingly, finding no ground for indulgence, the appeal is dismissed.

( RAJENDRA MENON ) ( SMT. VIMLA JAIN )

J U D G E J U D G E

Aks/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →