COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHIRCHIND HYDRO POWER LTD.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR I.T.A. No :: 74 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax - V/s - M/s Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd. Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri L.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R 12/08/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.7059/2014, an application for condonation of delay. Even though office note indicates that there is a delay of more than 1008 days but keeping in view the fact that the service certificate of the copy of the order was served on 20th January, 2011 and this appeal was filed on 20th June, 2011, therefore, the appellant took 150 days in filing the appeal wherein 120 days are the prescribed period. In this way, there is only delay of 30 days. 2. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application for condonation of delay and finding it to be bonafide, both the applications are allowed. The delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench in IT(SS)A No.171/Ind/2008 dated 29.12.2010, this appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. A search and survey operation under Section 132 read with Section 133 were carried out in the premises of the appellant and thereafter, notice under Section 153C was issued, assessing proceedings were concluded and based on the same the assessment order has been passed, the orders have been modified by the Commissioner to some extent by deleting some addition, this appeal has been filed on the substantial questions as are indicated in the body of the memorandum of appeal. As far as substantial questions of law nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, we find the same are already answered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in I.T.A. Nos. 52/2011, 55/2011, 58/2011, 60/2011, 61/2011, 64/2011 & 65/2011 vide judgment rendered on 15th June, 2015. In the said case, similar questions of law were framed with regard to notices issued under Section 153 and the recording of subjective satisfaction for proceeding under Section 153 have been considered and identical questions canvassed have been rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal or the appellant/Commissioner in the matter of deciding the substantial questions of law nos. 1 to 5 as are formulated in the memorandum of appeal. 6. As far as substantial questions of law nos. 6 & 7 are concerned, we find that it pertains to deletion of certain additions and in Paragraph-83 of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal it has been found that on due appreciation of the material available on record, a finding of fact has been recorded and the deletion has been found to be reasonable in nature. 7. In view of the above, as the question formulated are the questions of fact which has been concurrently decided by both the authorities. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 8. The orders passed by the Commissioner (appeals) and the Tribunal are based on appreciation of fact and evidence, they are pure question of fact. 9. Accordingly, finding no reason to interfere in the matter and finding no substantial question of law warranting re-consideration, this appeal stands dismissed. 10. C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge

Judge N.Mohan/-