COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GURUDEV BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05/12/2014 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in ITA No. 440/RJT/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008 -09, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law;

(2.) 0 Now so far as the proposed substantial question of law No. (A) is concerned, from the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Aspi Ginwala & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (52 SOT 16) Ahm. However, it is reported that the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the learned Tribunal in the case of Aspi Ginwala & Ors. (Supra) is the subject matter of appeal before this Court, being Tax Appeal No. 594/2012 and the aforesaid question No. (A) is at large before this Court and the aforesaid Tax Appeal is admitted to consider the aforesaid question No. (A).

(3.) 0 Now so far as question No. (C) i.e. whether the ITAT is justified in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow expense amount to Rs. 6,09,870/ - debited in P & L Account is concerned, it is true that the learned Tribunal has not elaborately dealt with the same and/or considered the same and has straightaway considered the observations made by the learned CIT(A) in paras 4.1 to 4.2.8 and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) granting the relief to the extent of Rs. 6,09,870/ - and restricted the disallowance of expenditure to Rs. 10,90,223/ -. It is true that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the issue elaborately and in detail and ought to have given independent findings/reasons while agreeing with the view taken by the learned CIT(A). However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and instead of remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal, we ourselves have considered the records rerecorded by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has given independent and elaborate reasons while restricting the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 10,90,223/ - and granted the relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 6,09,870/ - on each item. We see no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal restricting the disallowance of expenditure to Rs. 10,90,223/ - It is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 17,00,093/ - against which the learned CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance of expenditure to Rs. 10,90,223/ -. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises so far as question No. (C) is concerned.