BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Tax Case (Income TaxA£Bea!INo. f1 /2008 Appellant Respondent \ (^r-f .^.|..0% , ^.tiB-'L'."."^n-fc-()''!^y. LMSn"'^'i..;-r-. rtSW'-^C-';.,..^- w^^^]1^ Korba g^ed---"' ~>^C 1 "' ,;lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba VERSUS M/s. Shiv Narayan Enterpreneur, Transport Nagar, ^-^ Income Tax appeal U/s. 260 A of Income Tax AcLJ961. ^ -HC—78 ^5T "MIIKn^, ®1ll-Lf'IS,fqdiyy r^c>. •FWKR ^fta snt?I APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Division Bench: -Vejrsus- Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon.Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. 30-8-2009:- coulise Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, The appellant (Revenue) ha4 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questions of law as detailed in parat Briefly stated facts of the ca{ filed his return for the assessmeitt Rs.1,83,603/-. He was served with| Act by the Assessing Officer seekinjg mentioned in the notice. The aforesaid notice. In all 6 opportur| the Assessing Officer and finally, a him to show cause as to why ex-j should not be made accordingto Officer. On failure of the assesse^ <^i^ii<?i<tl'rt MW^ ^ [s'-il iRii^K ^? aifira 3nt?i Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba M/s Shiv Narayan, Entrepreneur, Transport Nagar, Korba for the appellant. preferred this appeal under Section |(for short 'the Act') on the substantial f-3 of the memo of appeal. ^e are that the respondent/asses^e year 2004-05 showing income of |a notice under Section 1 43 (2) of the his explanation on the various facts failed to submtt his reply to the (ities were given to the assessee by [lotice was issued to him calting upon [^arte assessment under Section 144 |the best judgmentof the Assessing to reply to the aforesaid notice, ex- asselssee .f. '^ ••::"•' ^'^ \ < ' .-.- * i ':'s'"!'l'«tsv'"~^'-:^ % "W.i'^S. is 'l''%te-._.'?-^--:.'??'. '"' ^sv.-:-'f:{'''XI-HG—78 ^SEI "4i<ii<n<<, ^til'y'Ko, MCTiyy ^??c -^- Rs.35,56,067/- vras added under *i<<ii!-i4N •wraf'ii fs^ <f«it^it ^siRman^i parte assessment was made und^r Section 144 and a total amount of |he various heads viz. a viz. capital investments by partners, investmejits towards purehase of fixed assets, unsecured loans, disallowance of|depreciation, addition on account of estimated net profit and disallowan<;e of deduction under Section 80-IB. The respondent/assessee pr| the Assessing Officer under Sefstion 246-A of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the appe^l of the assessee with a finding that the assessee was not given prop^ assessment under Section 144;acj by partners to the tune of Rs.5,03,( separately assessed to income t\ ^ferred an appeal against the order of ir opportunlty for conducting ex-parte Idition under the head of investments POO/- was not justified as partners are ^x; investment towards purchase of fixed assets of Rs.25,18,093/- is afso established from the audit report, as loan was advanced by Punjab |Mational Bank. It forms main source for making Investment in various fi^ also forwarded by the assesseej. Addition of Rs.76,500/- towards unsecured loans was also delet^d on the ground that the present Assessing Officer in his report to ( any adverse aspect jn respect of tl aforesaid reasons, depreciation to to the assessee and addition or ted assets, as copies of the bills were ;IT (Appeals) has not communicated ^e above loan transaction and for the :he tune of Rs.2,4Q,800/-was allowed account of estimated net profit of [1 Rs.25,071/- was deleted. Since trte assessee had withdrawn his claim against disallowance of deductior| under Seetion 80-IB for a sum of .£ "^ w I-HG—78 's^ '<<I<IIM*I, eitily'is, f"i<ii'Hy,< i^ "WtS'Vv WIT3?R%.^OTW ft^ Barve ¥^Twg?ta3ii^i -3' Rs-1,83,603/-, a total relief of confirmed by the Income Tax c^T^fc-Rl'T '^PT^ff ^f f^t •(f^R^K ^aifirasii^?! Rs.33,72,464/- was allowed to the assessee. The finding of fact rec^rded by the CIT (Appeats) was further Appellate Tribunat and the appeal preferred by the appellant (Reve^iue) was dismissed by the impugned order. So far as substantial quesljions of law framed by the appellant at paras 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of the mejmo of appeal is concemed, from bare perusal, it is evident that the sanjie relate to finding of fact recorded by both the Appellate Tribunals partners, investments towards ^ relation to capital investments by )urchase of fo<ed assets, unsecured loans, disallowance of depreciatio^ and addition on account of estimated net profit. From perusal ofthe re^soning assigned bythe CIT (App^ls), we are satisfied that the above fi^idings are not perverse and thesame are based on materiaf available (|>n record and they are not question of !aw, much less any substantial qu estion of law. In the light of above finding^, the other substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant in par^-3 for the purposes of this appeal are simply academlc, as the same wcjuld not affect interest of the Revenue. For the aforesaid reasons, dpesjiot involve any substantial ^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Jadge the appeal is dismi^ed, as the same uestion of law. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge