Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs M/S Shrimal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 2 January, 2017
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
I.T.A. No.7/2016
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Jabalpur
Vs.
M/s. Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Agrawal, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(02.01.2017) This is revenues appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act calling in question tenability of an order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in I.T.A. No.14/JBP/2012. The assessee herein is engaged in construction business and for the assessment year in question i.e. 2006-07, the assessee had shown income from M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. The original assessment order was passed on 8.8.2007 and during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08, it was noticed that aseesee has accounted for job work and received an amount of Rs.1.06 crore from Binani Cement pertaining to year 2006-07 in the assessment year 2007-08 and as the same was not accounted for and reflected in the year 2006-07, an action has been taken for reopening of the assessment, the Tribunal having interfered for the same, this appeal under Section 260-A. 2 I.T.A. No.7/2016
2. In para 11 of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal after going through the various judgments on the issue in hand and found that asseee has accounted for the job work in question, which was already discussed in the original assessment order by the Assessing Officer and these facts were considered in the order of assessment. It was found by the Tribunal that facts which were indicated as reasons for reopening of amount were available for the concerned assessment year and Assessing Officer having discussed the same in the assessment order, there was no new material or information available, which had escaped assessment and therefore, it is found that the notice issued for reopening of assessment on the ground of "amount escaped assessment"
having been not made out, the interference have been made. The learned Tribunal has dealt in detail various aspects of the matter and has recorded a finding to say that the material and document were already available before the Assessing Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that a case is made out to issue notice on account of escape of amount. This finding of fact based on consideration of the material available on record is a reasonable finding and no question of law arises for consideration.
3. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, the Tribunal having allowed the appeal of the assesee on due consideration, we are of the considered view that the tribunal has not committed any error. No question of law arises for consideration and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
pn