Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 332 - HC - Income TaxAddition on account of unaccounted sales - Tribunal upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- While the assessee had not maintained a stock register, the Assessing Officer had accepted the books of account maintained by the assessee. On a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is evident that the Commissioner (Appeals) has made lump-sum disallowance of ₹ 6,00,000/- after recording a finding that the book results have been accepted. Having regard to the fact that the Assessing Officer has accepted the books of account maintained by the assessee, no infirmity can be found in the approach adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in making a lump-cum disallowance after appreciating the material on record. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is basically a finding of fact, to which, the Tribunal has concurred. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon a concurrent finding of fact recorded after appreciating the material on record, cannot be stated to give rise to any question of law. Addition made on account of power and fuel expenses - Tribunal upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) has based his conclusion on the findings recorded by him that the Assessing Officer has not proved that the expenditure was not incurred for business purpose; nor had it been proved that the assessee had made any bogus claim; and that the Assessing Officer had also not given any reason for making such a huge disallowance. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded after appreciating the material on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in such concurrent findings of fact, it is not possible to state that the impugned order gives rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law.
|