The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 3 vs M/S Utech Developers Ltd.consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reiterated that High Court would not be justified in law in reversing in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts.
Facts
This Income Tax Appeal was filed challenging the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Both the CIT(A) as well as ITAT gave concurrent findings that in 2009-10, the assessee had provided the details vis-à-vis name of its employees as well as justification/ purpose of travel. The assessing officer had arbitrarily made an addition on an estimated basis @ of 20% of the total travelling expenditure which included domestic as well as foreign travel and conveyance of the employees, for which he failed to provide any cogent reasoning or working based on which such disallowances were made.Further, both held that the assessee had carried out its business of real estate and infrastructure development during the year under consideration. The respondent-assessee had participated in joint venture projects outside India in consonance with its Memorandum of Association and there was clear connection between the money borrowed and its utilization for the purposes of business of real estate and infrastructural development. Both the appellate authorities also observed that the assessee duly demonstrated that the funds borrowed had been deployed/invested for various business projects of the assessee.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the appellant was seeking interference with finding of facts arrived at by the CIT(A) and ITAT by asking this Court to re-appreciate the evidence. It relied on State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors. to reiterate that the High Court would not be justified in law in reversing in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity and no substantial questions of law arose in this matter. So, this appeal and application were dismissed.Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
