Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1612/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1612 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-IV - Appellant(s)
Versus
TORRENT
EXPORTS LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MANISH BHATT,SR ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 22/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue
is in appeal against judgement of the tribunal dated 6.2.2009 raising
following questions for our consideration :
“(A) Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to
allow the indirect cost attributable to unrealized export turnover of
Rs.5,03,84,577/- as against claim of Rs.4,75,42,803/-?
(B)
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in
confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing
Officer to allow the direct cost attributable to unrealized export
turnover of Rs.18,96,952/- and balance amount of Rs.15,11,997/-?”
With
assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue, we have perused the
orders on record. With respect to both questions, we find that the
Assessing Officer as well as the tribunal both concurrently found
that there is no dispute regarding export turnover of the assessee.
However, while computing total turnover for the purpose of indirect
cost, AO did not consider unrealized export turnover, though such
unrealized export turnover was part of the total turnover. Further it
was also found that the Assessing Officer without giving any reason
out of total total purchase bill of Rs.33,06,478/- allowed only
Rs.14,09,886/- as eligible purchase cost. Remaining purchase bill of
Rs.15,11,997/- were discarded as the assessee had failed to furnish
entire bills. However, it was found that assessee had submitted bills
for at-least 96% of the total purchase value which was not disputed
by the Assessing Officer and found no mistake in such bills.
CIT(Appeals) as well as tribunal therefore, found that such bills
should have been given credit for. We find that both issues are
predominantly factual in nature. CIT(Appeals) as well as tribunal
have considered evidence on record and come to the conclusion that
the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing such amount. No infirmity
is pointed out. In absence of any perversity we do not find any
substantial question of law arising.
Tax
Appeal is therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.)
(raghu)
Top