Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gom Industries Ltd. on 14 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2002]257ITR78(MP)
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for appellant, on the question of admission.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue, preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, passed on August 23, 2001.
3. The brief facts material for deciding this appeal are mentioned herein below :
The respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the addition of alleged undisclosed income on protective basis, amounting to Rs. 14,08,580. This undisclosed income was added in the income of the asses-see on account of search and seizure conducted in his premises on October 11, 1996, at Indore as well as at its Mumbai office.
4. However, the Tribunal has recorded a finding in paras. 3 and 4 that the assessee had recorded this transaction in its books of account as was clear from the audited balance-sheet filed along with the compilation. It has also been recorded that all through the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the said transaction with regard to supply of gas cylinders was a genuine transaction and the belief of the assessee seems to be reasonable on the basis of various documents. For recording this finding the Tribunal has held that if the transaction had been bogus, then the assessee would not have deposited premium towards insurance policy and the payments by cheques to the supplier of cylinders would not have been made. It has also been recorded that there appeared to be some collusion between the supplier of cylinders, i.e., M. M. Industries and the party, who was to fill up gases, i.e., Mega Gases Ltd. Thereafter, considering the correct interpretation of Section 158B(b) the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was no concealment in the manner provided under Clause (b) of Section 158B. It has also been recorded that when this item was not offered for taxation, similarly no depreciation was also claimed on it.
5. Considering the matter from all angles, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no concealment of income and the amount could not have been added as undisclosed income of the assessee. Against such a finding recorded by the Tribunal, we find that no substantial question of law arises. The finding so recorded, is finding of fact, which calls for no interference.
6. The appeal, being devoid of any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.