THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S NAVIN LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/649/2019HC GujaratGJHC24056821201916 September 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. RAO2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that neither of the two questions proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial questions of law. The Court found that both questions were pure questions of fact. The judgment states that the Revenue, after considering all relevant aspects, had recorded findings of fact in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the High Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved in the present Tax Appeal. The operative direction was that the Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee is M/s Navin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant is The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3. The assessment year in question is 2007-08. The appeal is filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), "D" Bench, Ahmedabad, dated 04.02.2019, in ITA No.292/Ahd/2011. The dispute pertains to additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning a difference in job work amounting to Rs.1,90,23,678/- and suppressed production amounting to Rs.1,60,23,176/-. The ITAT had deleted these additions.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following two questions of law proposed by the Revenue: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of difference of job work amounting to Rs.1,90,23,678/-, considering that the correctness of the assessee's claim remained unverifiable due to the non-production of day-to-day stock/production records before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of suppressed production amounting to Rs.1,60,23,176/- on similar facts related to the difference in job work, considering that the assessee had suppressed the production of tablets/capsules? The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the additions because the assessee failed to produce crucial records, making its claims unverifiable. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/649/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 649 of 2019 ============================================= THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 Versus M/S NAVIN LABORATORIES 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 A.C. RAO

Date : 16/09/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A 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 (for short “the Tribunal”), “D” Bench, Ahmedabad dated 04.02.2019 in the ITA No.292/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following two questions of law for the consideration of this Court : “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of difference of job work amounting to Rs.1,90,23,678/- without considering the fact that because of the non Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/649/2019 ORDER production of day to day stock/production records by assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), the correctness of the claim of the assessee remained unverifiable? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of suppressed production amounting to Rs.1,60,23,176/- on similar facts related to difference in job work, without considering the fact that the assessee had suppressed the production of tablets/capsules?” 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that none of the two questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial questions of law. Both the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. The Revenue, after due consideration of all the relevant aspects, has recorded the finding of fact in favour of the assessee. 4. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present Tax Appeal. In the result, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →