ORDER SHEET G.A.No.114 of 2014 ITAT 10 of 2014 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-XV Versus M/S.SHARP PRINTS BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 6th January, 2015. For Appellant/Petitioner : Mrs.A.G.Gutgutia,Advocate For Respondent : Mr. R.Bharadwaj, Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Sengupta,Advocate Court : Assessing Officer came to following findings : In connection it may be pointed out that by collecting so many bills, licenses, telephone, registration from various authorities, operation of manufacturing and existence of firm cannot be proved. 2 It is on aforesaid basis that he refused to give benefit of Section 80IB of Income Tax Act to assessee. assessee preferred appeal. Appellate Authority was of opinion that existence of factory was amply proved. department preferred appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which has affirmed views expressed by Appellate Authority. department is once again in appeal. Mrs.Gutgutia, learned advocate appearing for revenue submitted that views expressed by Assessing Officer quoted above were justified and therefore, Appellate Authority erred in taking different view on basis of evidence. We are unable to accept this submission. view expressed by Assessing Officer quoted above as matter of law, is not shown to us, to be correct. question for consideration was whether business of assessee was situated at premises which was declared by him. In support of aforesaid claim of assessee, he, it is not in dispute, submitted bills, licenses, telephone bill, registration certificate granted by various state authorities. Assessing Officer was of opinion that these pieces of evidence were not enough but Appellate Authority was of opinion that these pieces of evidences were enough to prove existence of business. Tribunal has evidently concurred with views of Appellate Authority. question was pure question of fact on which concurrent findings has been given by Appellate Authority and Tribunal. It is not possible to even suggest that 3 finding is perverse. There is, as such, no scope to entertain appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) Commissioner of Income-tax , Kol -XV v. M/s. Sharp Print