Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/S Vaibhav Entrprises

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 17th OF JULY, 2023 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 16 of 2023 BETWEEN:- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE ) AND M/S VAIBHAV ENTRPRISES THROUGH CONCERNED OFFICER STATION ROAD, MAIHAR, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (NONE FOR RESPONDENT ) This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following: ORDER The Revenue has approached this Court by preferring this appeal u/S 260A of the Income Tax Act in regard to the dispute pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 proposing following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and within the legal spectrum of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) by deleting the addition of Rs.69,18,07,576/- made by the AO on account of suppression of sales of iron ore ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while deleting the addition mentioned above, the ITAT 1 Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Signing time: 7/18/2023 6:51:46 PM Signature Not Verified has failed to allude to relevant facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, misread the evidences and its probative value thereby giving rise to perversity in the order of ITAT, which itself gives rise to question of law ? 3. Whether, the different sale figures found during seizure in an incriminating evidence as per law which has led the Assessing Officer to calculate suppression of sales to 20% ? 4. Whether, the Assessing Officer's calculation is in accordance with law vis-a-vis the deletion made by the learned ITAT ? 5. Whether, the learned ITAT has erred in law by ignoring the law laid down on the appreciation of evidence in the instant matter ? 6. Whether, the ITAT has applied the relevant law by ignoring the suppression of sales of iron ore and the legal principles arising therefrom ? 7. Whether, the suppression rate that was worked around 20% has been ignored by the ITAT in accordance with law or not ? 8. Whether, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in mechanically upholding the decision of CIT(A) by ignoring the relevant law regarding appreciation of evidence ? The foundational question in the present case is as to whether the Tribunal committed an error by upholding the decision of CIT (Appeal) thereby sustaining deletion of an addition of an amount of Rs.69,18,07, 576/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal while considering the dispute before it in respect of various assessment years decided the dispute in regard to the assessment year 2012-13 by adopting the findings rendered in respect of other assessment years. A bare perusal of the contents of Para 21, 22, 26 and 27 reveals Tribunal found that in absence of any charge of evasion of royalty/tax, it cannot be presumed that there is any suppression of quantity of production from the mine 2 Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Signing time: 7/18/2023 6:51:46 PM Signature Not Verified (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE or the purchase made by appellant from M/s Jai Minerals. The Tribunal also found that the findings leading to addition by the Assessing Officer are based on presumption rather than proof. Moreso, other findings rendered in the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned order reveal that they are based on factual disputes and, therefore, neither give rise to any substantial proposed question of law as proposed by the Revenue or otherwise. In the absence of any substantial question of law arising from the findings of Tribunal which are purely factual in nature, this Court declines admission to this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Biswal

3 Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Signing time: 7/18/2023 6:51:46 PM Signature Not Verified