D.B. Income Tax Appeal disposing of a dispute over disallowance of site expenses. The court held no substantial question of law existed and dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's order allowing sustained addition.
Appeal dismissed with consideration of questions 1 and 2 as already adjudicated in a prior judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.167/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Unique Buildtech Eng. Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur
DATE OF ORDER : 27.4.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. KK Bissa, for the appellant
So far as the question no.1 and 2 proposed by the Revenue are concerned, those have already been adjudicated by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. Harish Chand Ahuja (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.203/2013), decided on 26.11.2014, as such, we don't find any just reason to re-examine the same in the instant appeal. With regard to the proposed question no.3, suffice to mention that the Commissioner of Income Tax after appreciating the entire material available on record, held as under :-
“I have considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the findings of the A.O. Given in the assessment order. It is an undisputed fact that during the year the contract receipts have been substantially increased in comparison to the immediately preceding year which means the site of work of the appellant has spread over to other site also and therefore the site expenditures are bound to be higher than that of last year and the A.O. Has not denied this fact in the assessment order. Further the expenditure at site depend upon the various factors like, availability of materials to be used in the site, expenses on transportation of materials to the
site side, availability of labours, increase in the cost of materials, diesel etc. Further, it is a fact that the A.O. Has admitted all other expanses as reasonable and genuine as he has neither commented upon nor made any allowance out of other expenses. It is also not a case of the A.O. That the auditors have made adverse comments on the site expenditure claimed and the A.O. Has noticed some serious defects in maintaining the books of account except that the expenditure claimed under the head site expenses is not commensurating with the gross contract receipts. This is not a sufficient reasons for making such substantial disallowance out of particular head. Further, from the assessment order, it appears that the A.O. Has not called for any explanation for the increase in the site expenses. If he had asked for such explanations, the appellant must have explained the reasons for such increase.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while accepting the appreciation of evidence made by the Commissioner of Income Tax also considered it appropriate to allow sustained addition of Rs.7 lacs as site expenses. The findings arrived at are based on adequate appreciation of evidence and, as such, the instant appeal does not involve any substantial question of law that may warrant interference by this Court.
The appeal is dismissed.
[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.
Sanjay
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the Tribunal's finding on addition to site expenses when substantial question of law is not involved.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. Harish Chand AhujaFollowed¶2
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.203/2013
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur
M/s. Unique Buildtech Eng. Pvt. Ltd.
GOVIND MATHUR
JAISHREE THAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
