(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. The Revenue has filed these two Appeals. We have heard Ms.Mauna M.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr.S.N.Divetia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on 16.10.2007 under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short "The Act") by making certain additions. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the Appeal by order dated 19.1.2009 and set aside the order of the assessing officer. The Revenue filed Appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had been dismissed.
2. The Assessing Officer passed an order making two additions, one with regard to advance received against sanitary shop and the other in respect of sundry. Therefore, the respondents filed two appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which were allowed by common order dated 19.1.2009 and addition was deleted. The appellant challenged the order of CIT(Appeals) whereas the assessee also filed appeal. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by common judgment and appeal of the revenue was dismissed and the appeal of the assessee which was with regard to addition was allowed and additions were set aside. Tax Appeal No.743 of 2010 has been filed by the revenue on the following proposed substantial questions of law.
A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 20,85,103/- made in respect of advances received against tenements/shops ?
B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs./ 2,33,840/- made in respect of Sundry Creditors ?
C. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.22,51,000/- made in respect of advance from Ganesh Housing Corporation?
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the record. The Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.474 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Miraa Processors Pvt.Ltd. decided on 11.4.2012, after considering the decision of the Apex Court has held that the assessee has not claimed any cessastion of any kind of liability. Since the order of CIT (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal and finding of fact has been recorded that additions made by the Assessing Officer were rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), we are of the considered opinion that these Appeals are concluded by findings of fact and we do not find any error in the order of CIT (Appeals) and the order of the Tribunal. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these Appeals. Both these Tax Appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(V.M.SAHAI,J) (N.V.ANJARIA,J) ***vcdarji