Commissioner Of Income Tax Jabalpur vs. M/S Khemchand Motilal Jain Sagar

1 I.T.A. No.129/1999 11.1.

2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the appellant/Department. Heard on the question of admission. Challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure C on 13.8.1999, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue Department under Section 260-A. It is pending since 1999 and till date even substantial questions of law have not been framed and notice issued to the respondents. The appeal was filed in the year 1999 but after creation of State of Chhattisgarh the matter was transferred to High Court of Chhattisgarh and vide order dated 13.8.2009 finding the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter vesting with the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the matter has been received on transfer from the High Court of Chhattisgarh and after 13.8.2009 is being listed today for the first time. Respondent is a manufacturer of Bidies and for the assessment year in question certain additions made by the Assessing Officer were partly allowed by the Commissioner of Appeals at the instance of the revenue and challenging the orders passed it seems that appeals and cross objections were filed by the revenue and the assessee having been allowed and the appeal of the revenue being dismissed, this appeal has been filed under section 260 and the substantial question of law raised in this appeal reads as under :- 2 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and the partly allowing the objection filed by the assessee ?” On going through the memorandum of appeal we find that in Paragraphs No.1 and 2 the facts with regard to the proceedings held are narrated and in Grounds No. (A) and (B). The only ground canvased was that the order of the Tribunal suffers from patent error and illegality and deserves to be set aside. We find from a detailed order passed by the Appellate Tribunal that the Tribunal has found that remunerations paid to the directors and claimed as deductions were disallowed in an illegal manner and interfered with the orders of assessment. Cross objections also filed with regard to expenses incurred towards various entertainment and other claims were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. Keeping in view the detailed reasons indicated in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, we find no substantial question of law warranting consideration. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo) Acting Chief Justice Judge Anchal