PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I vs. M/S BHASKAR EXXOILS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/28/2017HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01010315201701 March 20172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were findings of fact, approving the limited interference made by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court found no substantial question of law that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which do not involve a substantial question of law, are not appealable under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. For the assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.3,47,01,540/- on loans and advances of Rs.37,82,88,621/- shown in the assessee's balance sheet, after the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these transactions. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed relief to the extent of Rs.55,27,003/-, considering a portion of the advances to be for business purposes. Both the Revenue and the assessee appealed this decision to the Tribunal, which dismissed both appeals, upholding the Commissioner's findings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision to uphold the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that a portion of the loans and advances were for business purposes, thereby granting partial relief to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the Tribunal, other than that the assessee also challenged the Commissioner's order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Commissioner's limited interference and that the concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal did not involve a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 260-A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-28-2017 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I Vs M/S BHASKAR EXXOILS LTD.) 01-03-2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. This is revenue's appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner, Appeals and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer found that in the balance sheet of the assessee, an amount of Rs.37,82,88,621/- was shown as the head of loans and advances. The assessing officer called upon the assessee and asked to file details and to explain these transactions. In response, the assessee submitted list of persons to whom the loans were advanced. The assessing officer after consideration disallowed the interest portion on the interest piece advanced given to certain groups and calculated interest @12% on the total advances and for the year at Rs.3,47,01,540/- and disallowed the same. On an appeal being filed, the Commissioner found that out of total amount assessed by the Assessing Officer, a sum of Rs.55,27,003/- was incurred for the business purpose and, thereafter, granted relief to the tune of Rs.2,91,74,537/-. Challenging the aforesaid limited interference made by the Commissioner, Appeals, both the revenue and the assessee challenged the same before the tribunal and the tribunal after evaluating the matter, dismissed both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee and found that the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner Appeals and findings recorded are based on the due appreciation of the evidences and material available on record and did not interfere into the matter. The aforesaid findings recorded by the tribunal is a due finding of fact approving the limited interference made by the Commissioner, Appeals and we see no substantial question of law warranting interference into the concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner Appeals and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, finding no ground, we dismiss this appeal. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE nd

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →