Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Sai Industries

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMARNATH (KESHARWANI) ON THE 9th OF AUGUST, 2023 ITA No.83 of 2022 BETWEEN:- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL(M.P.) .....APPLICANT (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA- ADVOCATE) AND M/s SAI INDUSTRIES MANGALWARA, THROUGH AUTHORISED OFFICER, E BAZAR, MAIN ROAD PIPARIYA-461775(M.P.)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following: - 2 - ORDER This appeal u/S 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assails order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore dismissing appeal No.IT(SS)A No.248/Ind/2019 preferred by Revenue thereby upholding the order of CIT(Appeals), Bhopal dated 16.09.2019 in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17 by which the first appeal of the Assessee was allowed setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent it made additions amounting to Rs.75,66,250/- on account of excess stock of gram pulse, Rs.2,14,30,211/- on account of bogus purchase of stock and Rs.52,01,496/- on account of undisclosed stock of Channi. 2. Learned counsel for Revenue Shri Siddharth Sharma proposes following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether, on the facts and spectrum of the case the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in disallowing the addition on account of undisclosed investment in excess of gram pulses u/S 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether on the facts and legal spectrum of the case the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in disallowing the additions made on account of disallowance u/S 37 ? 3. Whether of the facts and in the legal spectrum of the case that ITAT was justified in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in disallowing the addition on account of undisclosed investment in excess stock of “Channi” u/S 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 3. The principal contention of learned counsel for Revenue is that the additions of Rs.75,66,250/-, Rs.2,14,30,211/- and Rs.52,01,496/- were rightly made by the Assessing Officer but were wrongly deleted by - 3 - the First Appellate Authority when tested on the anvil of Section 37 and Section 69B of the Income Tax Act. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the Revenue at length and having gone through the record including findings rendered by the Tribunal in the impugned order, it is obvious that the Tribunal was in conformity with the view of CIT(A), Bhopal who deleted the additions on the basis of following grounds: “i) Survey team did not consider the stock kept at “Pragati Warehouse”. ii) Survey team wrongly analyzed the stock of ‘Channa’ as stock of Channi which was actually recorded in the regular books of account as stock of “Channa” which was kept at “Narmada Valley Warehouse”. Iii) Revenue authorities not providing the basis of valuation of physical stock to the assessee, thus deying the principles of natural justice. iv) Revenue failed to bring any instance of bogus purchase made by the assessee. v) No cogent/positive/incriminating material was found during search/survey to support the alleged addition.” 5. The aforesaid reasons assigned by the CIT(A), Bhopal for upturning the additions made by Assessing Officer and the Tribunal having upheld the order of the CIT(A), it is obvious that factual findings were rendered while concluding the matter by CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 6. More so, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal both have rendered concurrent findings of facts which do not deserve any interference. - 4 - 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out any aspect which may disclose arising of any substantial question of law. Since it is settled in law that in the absence of any substantial question of law, appeal u/S 260A of the IT Act cannot be entertained. This Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the present appeal for want of any substantial question of law. 8. Appeal stands dismissed. No cost. (SHEEL NAGU) (AMAR NATH KESHARWANI) JUDGE JUDGE YS Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA Date: 2023.08.16 18:30:53 +05'30'