THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NASHIK vs. M/S RAMDEO OIL INDUSTRIES, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers

ITA/33/2012HC BombayHCBM03035099201213 February 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S C DHARMADHIKARI,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal. The Court noted that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had found that the assessee had provided a complete and satisfactory explanation for the investments in jewelry. The lower appellate authorities had applied correct legal principles to arrive at the finding that the addition was not justified and required deletion. This finding of fact, affirmed by the IAT, led the High Court to conclude that the appeal was devoid of merits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik, against M/s Ramdeo Oil Industries, Jalgaon. The core issue revolved around unexplained investments, specifically in jewelry. The Assessing Officer had assessed unrecorded turnover at Rs. 1,70,53,153 and identified unexplained investments and expenses found during a search. Consequently, an addition of Rs. 27,97,419 was made towards investment in gold ornaments. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, finding the assessee's explanation satisfactory. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (IAT) affirmed the deletion, agreeing that the assessee had provided a complete explanation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had identified unrecorded turnover and unexplained investments in jewelry, warranting an addition. The Revenue questioned the deletion of this addition by the lower appellate authorities. The Assessee argued that a complete and satisfactory explanation was provided for the investments in jewelry, justifying the deletion of the addition. The Assessee's explanation was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 ITA33-12.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.33 /2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Nashik .. Appellant V/s M/s Ramdeo Oil Industries,Jalgaon .. Respondent .... Shri D.V.Soman,Adv.for appellant. ... CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,JJ.

DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2014. PER COURT : Heard Mr.Soman, advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2] We have perused with the assistance of Mr.Soman the orders of the Assessment Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3] The issue pertains to unexplained investments and particularly jewelery. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for brevity hereinafter referred to as the IAT] has in its detail order

2 ITA33-12.odt found that the explanation given by the assessee was satisfactory. The reasons assigned by the IAT at para no.11 of the order passed, clearly shows that finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, has been accepted. The Commissioner of Income Tax as also the IAT found that the Assessee Officer accepted that unrecorded income of assessee is utilised for acquisition of jewelery. He has assessed unrecorded turn over at Rs.One Crore Seventy Lac Fifty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three in the hands of the assessee. But said turn over which has been shown with the balance sheet is unexplained investment, expenses and other outgoing found in the course of search. He therefore, assessed sum of Rs.Twenty Seven Lac Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen as investment in gold ornaments. Being satisfied with the explanation of assessee, Commissioner of Income Tax has deleted the addition and the revenue questioned it. 4] However, Commissioner of Income Tax and the IAT has held that there is a complete explanation given by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax has referred to that explanation and by applying correct legal principles, arrived at a finding that the addition was not justified and requires to be deleted. Such a finding of fact has been affirmed by IAT. 5] We do not find that there any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is

3 ITA33-12.odt therefore, devoid of any merits and is dismissed.

[RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J.] [S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.] umg/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →