IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1237 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Appellant Mumbai. Vs. Alfa Beta Engineering Construction .... Respondent Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Mr. Arvind Pinto for Appellant. Mr. Balkrishna V. Jhaveri for Respondent. CORAM : S.V . GANGAPURWALA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 7 JUNE, 2017 PER COURT : Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2004 2005. 2 This is appeal of Revenue against order dated 9th October, 2013 passed by Tribunal. Revenue has formulated following questions stated to be substantial questions of law for our consideration Dusane 2/5 itxa 1237.2014 a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT could be said to be perverse in ignoring fact that no evidence was produced at stage of assessment as also at stage of Remand but claims of Respondent company were admitted. b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, decision of Tribunal to uphold deletion of Rs.50.00 Lacs is justified on merely statement made by Company that money was utilised by head office that was not backed by any evidence or proof. c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding orders of CIT (A) limiting amount of cash payments to only 10% in absence of any bills to indicate nature of payments made. Dusane 3/5 itxa 1237.2014 d) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance of unproved purchases to only Rs.2.00 Lacs in absence of details and source of these purchases. e) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in restoring to file of CIT (A) issue regarding outstanding cash purchases of Rs.54,00,168/ since this was booked in profit and loss account and therefore there was no ambiguity in same. 2 Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for Appellant strenuously contends that observations of Tribunal are perverse. same are based without any evidence on record. Tribunal was not justified to uphold deletion of Rs.50.00 Lacs merely by statement of respondent that money was utilised by Head Office without any proof. In absence of any material evidence on record, Tribunal could not have passed impugned order. No record was produced before Assessing Officer or Commissioner of Appeals. In view of that Dusane 4/5 itxa 1237.2014 argument on substantial question of law is that when no evidence was produced at stage of assessment so also stage of remand, whether deletion of Rs.50.00 Lacs is justified and Tribunal was justified in confirming dis allowance restricted only Rs.2.00 Lacs in absence of details of source of these purchasers. 3 We have also heard learned counsel for respondent, who supports order passed by Tribunal. 4 On perusal of order passed by Tribunal, it appears that dispute is factual in nature. Tribunal has observed in order that assessee has incurred total sub contract payment of Rs.2,19,02,968/ out of which Rs.2,06,96,216/ was paid by cheques and whatever payment was made by cash, TDS was deducted. payment details submitted from pages 33 to 40 of paper book shows that 95% payments were made by cheques. Tribunal has also observed that as far as cash payment of Rs.50.00 Lacs is concerned, it is not payment made by assessee to parties on account of sub contact payments but said amount represents remittance of various amounts made by assessee to it's branch office at Chennai for purpose of work carried out at various sites. Tribunal has referred to details given at pages 10 and 11 of paper book. Dusane 5/5 itxa 1237.2014 5 As far as third aspect is concerned in respect of same, matter has been remitted by Tribunal. 6 In light of above discussion, we find that appeal does not give rise to any substantial questions of law. appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-10, Mumbai v. AlfaBetaEngineeringConstruction Co.Pvt.Ltd