Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Raja Ginning Udyog on 10 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)189CTR(MP)59
Bench: Deepak Verma, Uma Nath Singh
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on admission.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), against the order dt. 3rd Jan., 2003 passed by Tribunal, Indore. In this appeal, appellant is also challenging the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 5th Oct., 2001, whereby on application being filed by respondent-assessee herein under Section 254(2) of the Act, the same was allowed. We are of the opinion that in the present appeal, appellant-Revenue cannot be permitted to challenge the earlier order dt. 5th Oct., 2001, whereby the application of the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act was allowed. If the appellant had felt aggrieved against the said order, then at that time it should have preferred an appeal against the said order. It did not do so. Thus, the said order has attained finality. Thus, in the present appeal we are required to consider the correctness and propriety of the subsequent appellate order passed by the Tribunal.
3. The matter pertains to asst. yr. 1990-91. Two questions were framed before the Tribunal by the Revenue:
"(i) Whether the CIT(A) erred in reducing the disallowance out of assessee's claim of expenses in respect of job work receipts, by Rs. 15,000?
(ii) Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,11,768 which was made by AO upon finding liability to that extent shown by the assessee in its balance sheet furnished, did not in fact exist?"
4. With regard to ground No. (i) the assessee had in fact filed the labour register before the CIT(A) who had examined the matter at length. In para 60 of the impugned order, Tribunal has recorded a finding that the said register which was filed by the assessee before CIT(A) was fully examined and entries made therein were verified. Only after being satisfied with the entries the benefit was extended to the assessee. Thus, this finding of fact does not call for any interference.
5. With regard to ground No. (ii) the Tribunal has recorded a finding that some enquiry was conducted by the AO on his own and he had not asked the assessee to produce the farmers so as to ascertain from them the payments made to them with regard to cotton purchased by the assessee. Assessee was asked to produce farmers for the first time on 4th Jan., 1993, i.e., about 3 months before passing of the final order. Since the farmers were busy during this period, they could not be produced and no further opportunity in this regard was given. Thus, finding has been recorded in the enquiry that was conducted by the AO behind the back of the assessee. This violated the principles of natural justice. In the light of this finding, CIT(A) and Tribunal both found the procedure adopted by AO as erroneous and against law. This has also now become a finding of fact which cannot be challenged in this appeal, as the appeal is required to be heard only on substantial question of law.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.