M/S SHRI KESHARIAJEE MARBLES P LTD. vs. ACIT DCIT CIRCLE UDAIPUR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case, were pure findings of fact. The Court found no error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal, which had modified the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that each appellate authority had reconsidered the matter afresh and granted substantial relief to the assessee. Since the findings were considered to be pure findings of fact and did not involve any substantial question of law, as contemplated by Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appeals were dismissed summarily. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
These three appeals were filed by M/s Shri Kesheriajee Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) concerning three different assessment years. The Assessing Officer (AO) had rejected the assessee's books of accounts for not being correctly and completely maintained and made best judgment assessments under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO considered the assessee's disclosed sales and gross profit rate, along with other circumstances, to arrive at the assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) modified the AO's orders in favour of the assessee. Subsequently, the Tribunal further modified these orders, also in favour of the assessee.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the orders of the Tribunal, which modified the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in favour of the assessee, contain any substantial question of law, as contemplated by Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appellate authorities, including the Tribunal, had reconsidered the matter afresh and provided substantial relief. The assessee implicitly contended that the Tribunal's findings were based on facts and that the High Court should examine these findings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, by filing the appeals, the revenue implicitly challenged the Tribunal's modifications in favour of the assessee, likely arguing that the Tribunal erred in law or fact.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. These three appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Tribunal relating to three different assessment years. The Assessing Officer in all these years had found after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, that the books of accounts are not correctly, and completely maintained, and therefore, he proceeded to reject them, and then after giving opportunity of hearing made assessment under Section 144 i.e. best judgment assessment, wherein he took into account the figure of sales disclosed by the assessee, so also the gross profit rate, as declared by the assessee, and then considering the other attending totality of circumstances, made a best judgment assessment, of course, after invoking some amount of guesswork. These orders of the Assessing Officer have been modified in favour of the assessee in appeal by the learned Commissioner in various aspects. Then in further appeal before learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has also further modified the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner, in favour of the assessee. In our view, even after going through the three orders in detail, and hearing learned counsel on all aspects, which are not even permissible within the scope of Section 260A, we do not find any error in the orders impugned. It is significant to note that each Appellate Authority has reconsidered the matter afresh, and has given substantial relief to the assessee. In our view, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case, are pure findings of fact, and do not involve any substantial question of law, as contemplated by Section 260A. The appeals thus, have no force, and are dismissed summarily.
( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Rudra Pratap Singh vs. The Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
