Gujarat High Court
Dattani And Co vs Income Tax on 1 October, 2013
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
DATTANI AND CO.....Appellant(s)V/SINCOME TAX OFFICER....Opponent(s) O/TAXAP/847/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 847 of 2013 ============================================= DATTANI AND CO.....Appellant(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 01/10/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) Present tax appeal has been preferred by the appellant assessee to consider the following proposed substantial questions of law.
1. Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.24,151, Rs.4,443/- & Rs.4,70,000/- towards alleged bogus purchases/sales in contravention of settled principles of law?
Whether on facts and in law, the Tribunal has substantially erred in not resorting to provision of section 255 for referring the matter to Full Bench/Special Bench and deciding the disputed issue of purchases & sales in conflict with earlier Tribunal s decision of the same Bench pressed into service by the appellant?
Whether on facts and in law, the Tribunal s and conclusion for confirming addition towards purchases and sales for the year under consideration is in ignorance of relevant material on record and taking aid of irrelevant factors not germane to subject matter of appeal with the result that the finding and conclusion of the Tribunal is vitiated on facts and in law?
Heard Shri R.K. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ). So far as the proposed substantial question No.2 is concerned, it appears that there was no conflict in any of the earlier decisions of Tribunal on the issue of purchase and sales as sought to be contended and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to refer the matter to the Full Bench / Special Bench. Under the circumstances, present tax appeal qua question No.2 is dismissed.
Similarly, so far as proposed question No.3 is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the impugned order itself the learned Tribunal has specifically observed that so far as grounds No.5 to 9 in the appeal are concerned, the assessee has not pressed the same and has not made any submissions on the same. It is also required to be noted that even in the subsequent rectification application also, no grievance has been raised by the assessee with respect to the aforesaid observation. Under the circumstances, so long as the aforesaid observations are there, there is no question of considering the substantial question No.3. Under the circumstances, present tax appeal qua question No.3 is also dismissed.
Now, so far as the proposed substantial question of law i.e. question No.1 is concerned, Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654, which seems to be not dealt with and/or considered by the learned Tribunal.
Hence, for the aforesaid, NOTICE returnable on 21st October 2013. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Sd/-
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Ajay Page 2 of 2