THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SIYARAM METALS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/32/2020HC GujaratGJHC24001803202003 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had not committed any error, let alone an error of law, in passing the impugned order. The Court found that the question of law proposed by the Revenue could not be termed as a question of law, and certainly not a substantial question of law. The reasoning was primarily based on the Court's prior decision in a similar appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 concerning the same assessee, which was dismissed. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the suppressed sales or under-invoicing allegations but rather focused on the nature of the question of law presented. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, dated June 28, 2019, for Assessment Year 2003-04. The appeal challenges the ITAT's deletion of additions made on account of suppressed sales and under-invoicing. The Revenue noted that the matter was pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication. The Gujarat High Court had previously dismissed a similar appeal filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2002-03 concerning the same assessee and the same issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and fact in deleting the addition made on account of suppressed sales and under-invoicing, considering the matter was still pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of evidence and procedural pendency). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's decision appears to be based on its prior ruling and its assessment of the proposed question of law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred by deleting the addition, emphasizing that the underlying issue of suppressed sales and under-invoicing was still under adjudication by the Central Excise authorities. They contended that the ITAT's decision was premature or erroneous in light of this pending adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/32/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 32 of 2020 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SIYARAM METALS PVT. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 03/02/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

This Tax Appeal, under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act, 1961’), is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 28th June, 2019, in ITA No.292/RJT/2011 for the A.Y.2003-04. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law, for the consideration of this Court: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred on law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of suppressed sales and under invoicing without appreciating that the matter is still pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication?” C/TAXAP/32/2020 ORDER

Our attention has been drawn to the order passed by this Court dated 25th June, 2019 [Tax Appeal No.183 of 2019], in the case of very same assesses. In Tax Appeal No.183 of 2019 for the A.Y.2002-03, the very same question, as proposed in the present appeal, was considered by this Court. The Tax Appeal No.183 of 2019 came to be dismissed by this Court.

Having heard Ms.Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and having considered the proposed question of law and also having gone though the findings on record by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The question proposed, cannot be termed as the question of law much less the substantial question of law.

In the result, the Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →