Commissioner of Income TAx-II V. Ganapathi Ingots Pvt Ltd

ITTA/744/2014

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad against M/s. Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, concerning the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision on several grounds related to the valuation and taxation of certain expenditures and assets. The main issues revolved around the necessity and evidence of expenditures on extra works, the valuation of land held for road widening, the profit or loss shown by the assessee on extra works, and the inclusion of unsold flats in closing stock. The High Court, led by Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice Sanjay Kumar, upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no substantial question of law that warranted interference.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677558 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S R ASHOK
• Keywords: Appellate Tribunal; Assessment Year 2005-06; Closing Stock Valuation; Income Tax; Extra Works Expenditure; Land Valuation for Road Widening
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 744 of 2014 DATED:30.01.2015 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 744 of 2014 Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 10.8.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06 on the following suggested questions of law: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that once finished flats are handed over by the Developer to the Assessee there was further need for the Assessee to incur huge expenditure on extra works and also there is no evidence of such expenditure ? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the land held for road widening is to be valued and the value needs to be excluded from the total cost of the land for the purpose of closing stock, in spite of there being no evidence on record to show the same ? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee has shown profit of Rs.15,96,405/- on account of extra works whereas in reality, loss of Rs.6,83,595/- is shown by the assessee ? (D) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the value of unsold flat should not be taken into closing stock despite the fact that the assessee handed over possession of entire land to the Developer and also received constructed area of 4550 sq.ft., which includes unsold flat ? (E) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal on various issues can be said to be based on material on record ? We have heard Mr.S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after appreciating the fact held that the amount of income offered for taxation was reasonable and justified. We do not think that we should substitute our own appreciation, which is not simply permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, we do not find any element of law, much less any substantial question of law to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 30th January, 2015 Pnb "