1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Aaykar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... APPELLANT Versus M/s. Gupta Coalfields and Washries, Shriram Towers, Near N.I.T. Building, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate for the respondent. ..... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 09, 2009. ORDER : (PER F.M. REIS, J.) Heard Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 2. This is an Income-Tax Appeal filed by the appellant inter alia to quash and set aside the order in ITA No.115/Nag/07 (Assessment Year 2003-04) decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, on 28.09.2007. It is the case of the appellant that on 24.12.2003 search and seizure operation under Section 132 was carried out at the business premises of the Company and residence of the Directors of the respondent and a notice under Section 153A was issued on 10.08.2004 and served on 11.8.2004. The assessee company had filed its return and declared income of Rs.30,57,480/- after claiming deduction of Rs.25,000/- under Chapter VI of the Income Tax Act and offered book profit under Section 115JB at Rs.1,99,37,500/-. It is further their case that on 28.3.2006, assessment order was passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act and an amount of Rs.12,57,055/- was added to the income on account of difference found in books from seized documents. An appeal was preferred by the respondent to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), Nagpur, which by its order dated 3 8.12.2006 deleted the said additions made in the assessment order. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The records reveal that in the assessment order, a difference of Rs.3,31,483/- was said to have been found in the books of accounts of assessee and the seized documents which remained unexplained, therefore, this amount was sought to be added back to the total income of the assessee. Another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was offered for taxation on account of expenditure disallowable. So also, a sum of Rs.9,19,572/- was also sought to be added to the total income of the assessee as sales recorded in the books. In the appeal which was preferred, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Nagpur, after considering the evidence on record adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that as far as the said sum of Rs.3,31,483/- is concerned, the same is to 4 be deleted as after examining the account of M/s. Maheshwari Enterprises and survey and scrutiny conducted in the premises, no difference was found as sought to be observed by the Assessing Officer. As far as the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the CIT (A) came to be conclusion that the said sum was verifiable from the records and the inclusion of such income was highly unjustified and would amount to double taxation. With regard to the addition of the said sum of Rs.9,19,572/-, the same was ordered to be deleted as the Assessing Officer had failed to correct the difference noticed by him on account of two accounts and there are no unrecorded sales found on perusal of the records. On such findings, the CIT (A) allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents. 4. In the appeal preferred by the appellants before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, it was held after examining the records as well as perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A), the additions made by the Assessing 5 Officer was not sustainable having regard to all the facts of the case and that CIT(A) fully justified in deleting the same. The said findings were given after reappreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. 5. From the impugned order it is manifested that the disputed amounts claimed by the Assessing Officer were deleted after appreciating the evidence on record and these are concurrent findings of fact based on material produced by the parties before the authorities below. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to show that any piece of material evidence was not considered by the CIT(A) nor the ITAT while passing the impugned order. On perusing the impugned orders, we find that the findings which resulted in deleting the said additions sought to be made by the Assessing Officer were based on material on record and there is no perversity in the said findings given by the CIT (A) and ITAT. 6 6. In view of the above, there is no substantial question of law to be adjudicated in the present Income Tax Appeal. As such, this appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ******* *GS.