M/s. CCL Products (India) Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -1

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.361/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Madho Lal Bangard Date of Judgment : 11.08.2014 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr. K.R.Sharma, OIC on behalf of appellant-Department. This income tax appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arises out of order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur, by which it has allowed the appeal of assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Department, for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2003-04. The appeal of the assessee was allowed upholding the objections in confirming the addition of Rs.19,13,184/- in the account of assessee. The Tribunal found that out of the total addition of Rs.53,82,768/-, the A.O. was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.34,69,584/-. The Income Tax Department has preferred this appeal on the following questions of law: “(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of RS.34,69,584/- as against the addition of Rs.53,82,768/- made by the Assessing Officer, ignoring that the addition was made on the basis of entries recorded in the books of accounts of M/s. Ashish International Group and after recording the finding that Shri B.S.Bhandari, in whose name the entries were appearing, was a Benami of the assessee? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of Rs.34,69,584/- as against the addition of Rs.53,82,768/- made by the assessing Officer, ignoring that the addition was made on the basis of entries recorded in the books of accounts of

2 M/s. Ashish International Group and without discussing and deciding the grounds raised by the department? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing further relief of Rs.8,50,000/- being credit entry of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of Shri Mukesh (PC), deposit the fact that the assessee failed to explain the same and Shri Bhandari was Benami of the assessee? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal is perverse, contrary to the record and untenable in the eye of law?” We have gone through the orders passed by the ACIT and CIT(A). The findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact which do not rise any question of law, much less substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court. The appeal, thus, does not call for interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),ACTING C.J. Mohit S/1 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, P.A.