Essence Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Through Shri Shailesh Agrawal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) 1

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2023 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2023 BETWEEN:- ESSENCE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH SHRI SHAILESH AGRAWAL S/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O 630, USHA NAGAR EXTENTION, OPP. DASHAHRA MAIDAN, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER). AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, ROOM NO.101, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL-3) ROOM NO. 103, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AREA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM Signature Not Verified 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 17.08.2023

Pronounced on : 10.10.2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following: JUDGMENT This appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the final order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore in Cross Objection No. 04/IND/2021 (arising out of the ITA 278/IND/2020) in respect of the Assessment Year 2012-13 proposes the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT. merely erred in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant in the cross objection specifically the ground no. 3 pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13? (2) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT merely brushed aside all the grounds raised in the cross objection by holding that the grounds raised in the cross objection merely in support of the order of the First Appellate Authority and no substantial arguments were raised whereas the grounds raised in the appeal before the ITAT specifically ground no. 3 was challenging the addition sustain by the First Appellate Authority? (3) Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse and therefore to the extent of the ground no.3 Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM Signature Not Verified 3 order of the Ld. ITAT ought to have been set aside? 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant pressed the aforesaid three substantial questions of law. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission. 4. The findings rendered by the Tribunal are tested on envil of aforesaid three proposed substantial questions of law and this Court finds thus : The grounds of assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are identical and similar and the learned CIT (DR) could not show any distinct or dissimilar factual position of situation between the A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. Therefore, the conclusion recorded in the appeal filed by the Revenue with regard to ground Nos. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 would apply mutatis mutandis to ground No. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee has filed the cross objections only to support the first appellate order. However, no substantial arguments were advanced in support of cross objections by the assessee. The appeals of the revenue having been dismissed for the A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, the cross objection having become academic and infructuous were not adjudicated. In the result, the cross objections raising the grounds (1) to (3) filed by the assess were dismissed. Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM Signature Not Verified 4 5. In the matter of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari MANU/SC/0091/2001:[2001] 3 SCC 179, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following: “A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis” 6. In view of the above discussion and the findings arrived at by the ITAT, this Court is of the view that neither any of the proposed substantial questions of law (1) to (3), nor any other substantial question of law arises for consideration herein. 7. Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of law having Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM Signature Not Verified 5 been made out by the assessee, the present appeal preferred by the assessee against the order impugned passed by the ITAT, Indore does not deserve to be admitted. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. vidya (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE JUDGE Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM Signature Not Verified