THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SIYARAM METALS PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the 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 considered a question of law, and certainly not a substantial question of law. This decision was heavily influenced by the High Court's prior dismissal of a similar Tax Appeal (No.183 of 2019) filed by the Revenue against the same assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03, which involved the very same proposed question of law. The ratio decidendi is that if a proposed question of law is identical to one previously dismissed by the High Court as not being a substantial question of law, the current appeal will also be dismissed on the same grounds. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, specifically the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, has filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated June 28, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06 and concerns an addition made on account of suppressed sales and under-invoicing. The High Court notes that a similar appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2002-03, involving the same assessee and a nearly identical question of law, was dismissed by the Court on June 25, 2019.
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 that the matter was still pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication? (Question of law and fact, concerning the deletion of additions based on pending excise proceedings). 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 previous ruling in a similar case. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred by deleting the addition, highlighting that the underlying issue of suppressed sales and under-invoicing was still under consideration by the Central Excise authorities. The Revenue implicitly contended that the Tribunal should not have proceeded with deletion without a final determination by the excise department.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/47/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 47 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) 1. 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 28 th June, 2019, in ITA No.350/RJT/2013 for the A.Y.2005-06. 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?” Page 1 of 2
C/TAXAP/47/2020 ORDER 3. Our attention has been drawn to the order passed by this Court dated 25 th 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. 4. 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. 5. In the result, the Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 2 of 2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
