Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Chattisgarh High Court

Deputy Commissioner Of Incom Tax vs M/S Pushpak Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vandana ... on 16 November, 2018

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                   1


                                                                                        NAFR
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                        TAXC No. 148 of 2017

              Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                 ---- Appellant
                                                Versus
              M/s Pushpak Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road Raipur,
               Chhattisgarh
                                                                              ---- Respondent

with TAXC No. 151 of 2017  Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus  M/s Godavari Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent with TAXC No. 153 of 2017  Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus  M/s Rose Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Rohit Tiwari and Shri Vinay Kumar Jain, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 16.11.2018

1. Heard counsel for the Revenue and counsel for the Respondent.

2. No question of law as such arises for consideration in the tax appeal, especially when there are concurrent finding of facts by the Income Tax Commissioner 2 (Appeal) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

3. We have also noticed that the only reason why the Assessing Authority creating tax liability was failure on the part of the assessee to produce evidence with regard to some of the investors which was by way of a Bank statement.

4. However, those statements were produced before the Appellate Authority authenticity of which was not in question or doubt, therefore, the Appellate Authority accepted the position and set aside the order of the Assessing Authority. Such finding of fact was affirmed given by the Appellate Tribunal.

Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the two orders which needs interference in the tax appeal.

5. The appeals stand dismissed.

                          Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                  (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)                              (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                      Chief Justice                                         Judge
Brijmohan