COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. NEW TIMBER MARKET ASSOCIATION

TAXAP/489/2012 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 489 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish  to see the  fair copy of the judgment? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? No ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI Versus NEW TIMBER MARKET ASSOCIATION ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 09/08/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in this tax appeal.

TAXAP/489/2012 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. This tax appeal has been filed on the following proposed substantial question of law. “Whether   the   Appellate   Tribunal   has substantially   erred   in   law   by   dismissing   the appeal   of   the   revenue   without   appreciating that CIT(A) did not give any finding as to the annulment of the 158BD order. The arguments as extracted in para 10 of the CIT(A)'s order is wrongly taken as his findings by the Appellate Tribunal.   As   such   the   CIT(A)   gave   only quantum relief which was challenged before Appellate Tribunal in the grounds raised. Thus the order of the Appellate Tribunal is without any factual basis and in fact on presumptions?” 3. The Tribunal has recorded finding of facts in paragraph 4 of its judgment which is extracted below. “3. We have considered that rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that as per para 10 of his order, it is held by the Ld. CIT(A) that proceedings u/s 158BD in the present case are unwarranted and bad in   law   and   consequently,   block   assessment order passed deserves to be cancelled. For the sake   of   ready   reference,   we   reproduce   the relevant para 10 of the order of Ld. CIT(A):­ “10. The statement of facts, the written submissions   and   the   paper   book containing copies of evidences have been perused   and   considered   so   also   the, contentions   of   the   A.O.   taken   in   the assessment order. The reasoning of the A.O. precisely is that if Shri Rajaiwala received some amount, it must have been paid   by   somebody.   Moreover,   Shri Rajaiwala agitated not to have contested

TAXAP/489/2012 3/4 JUDGMENT the addition of Rs.17 lakhs made in his. The   A.O.   therefore   has   held   that   the unaccounted by the appellant. However, it   is   strongly   argued   on   behalf   of   the appellant that it's name has not appeared on any of the papers seized from Shri Rajaiwala.   The   A.   O.   who   made assessment in the case of Rajaiwala has not made any reference of the appellant in   his   order.   In   the   circumstances, proceedings u/s 158BD in the case of the appellant   were   unwarranted   and   also bad   in   law.   Consequently,   block assessment order passed deserves to be cancelled.

This

argument

has considerable force in view of the facts and circumstances submitted,. Moreover, in the assessment order made in the case of Shri Jayantibhai P. Patel u/s. 158BC the   name   of   the   appellant   is   not appearing.   In   the   circumstances,   the challenge   to   the   legality   of   the assessment   order   cannot   be   outright rejected.   Now,   let   us   examine   the additions made, on merits.” 4.     As   per   above   para   of   the   order   of   Ld. CIT(A), we find that on technical aspect, it is held   by   the   learned   CIT(A)   that   the   Block assessment order passed by the A.O. is bad in law and deserves to be cancelled. No ground has been raised by the revenue against this finding of Ld. CIT(A) and hence, ground raised by   the   revenue   on   merits   is   of   academic interest   only   and   hence,   the   same   are   not being decided. 5.   In   the   result,   the   appeal   of   the   revenue stands dismissed in the terms indicated above.” 4. In view of the aforesaid finding of facts and as the questions

TAXAP/489/2012 4/4 JUDGMENT raised by the department is only academic, we do not find that the question raised by the Revenue raises any substantial question of law.   This   appeal   devoid   of   any   merits,   and   it   is   accordingly dismissed. [V.  M. SAHAI, J.] [N. V. ANJARIA, J.] Amit