THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
I.T.T.A. No. 546 of 2014
DATED:14.08.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Kanyaka Parameswari Engg. LTd., Hyderabad.
….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
I.T.T.A. No. 546 of 2014
Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 5.3.2013 in relation to the assessment period from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.2002 and 1.4.2002 to 9.10.2002 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition especially when the said addition/disallowance was directly attributable to the bogus expenditure on purchases which was confirmed by the Tribunal ?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on the ground that there was no seized material on the addition made by the A.O. when the said addition was nothing but a disallowance consequent to the addition made on bogus expenditure on purchases and which was also confirmed by the Tribunal ?
We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal, found on fact that the addition was sought to be made not in relation to any seized material. The exact fact finding of the learned Tribunal is set out herein:
”If there is no seized material there cannot be any addition. More so, there can be no ad hoc disallowance or estimated disallowance. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) not made this addition on the basis of any seized material.”
It was further found that there was no incriminating material or evidence found during the course of search action to indicate that the assessee incurred any such expenditure.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 14th August, 2014 Pnb M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J