THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. BABALLAL BHIKULAL FIBERS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The Court noted that the appeal challenges concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The ITAT had allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- that was confirmed by the CIT(A). The reasoning was that the authorities below had appreciated the evidence collected by the AO and concluded that the respondent did not conceal income or submit a fictitious return. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The appeal concerns assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated scrutiny and concluded that the respondent, Babanlal Bhikulal Fibers Pvt. Ltd., had concealed income of Rs. 45,54,145/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] partially upheld the AO's finding, deleting Rs. 43,74,145/- and confirming concealment of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Both the assessee and the Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the remaining addition of Rs. 1,80,000/-, and consequently dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The High Court is now hearing an appeal against the ITAT's order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/-, thereby holding that the assessee did not conceal income. The Revenue contends that the ITAT erred in its findings, which were based on appreciation of evidence. The Assessee argues that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities and the ITAT, which deleted the additions, were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and that no substantial question of law arises. The ITAT's decision to delete the entire addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- is the core of the dispute.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
( 1 ) ITA6.2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik. .. Appellant Versus Babanlal Bhikulal Fibers Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon. .. Respondent ---------------- Mr D. V. Soman, Advocate for the appellant Mr R. R. Chandak, Advocate for the respondent ---------------- CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 6th, 2015 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. Perused the record. 2. In our view, there does not arise any substantial question of law in this appeal. 3. This appeal challenges concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessing Officer started scrutiny in the respondent’s case for its
( 2 ) ITA6.2013 income tax return of assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer after recording evidence of various parties came to a conclusion that the respondent’s claim was fictitious. He held that, the respondent concealed income of Rs. 45,54,145/- and directed calculation of tax on such income. But, in Appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted an amount of Rs. 43,74,145/- out of total addition and partly confirmed the finding of Assessing Officer that the respondent had concealed income to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Both the parties then approached to the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal and held that even the additional income of Rs. 1,80,000/- deserves to be deleted. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed. The authorities below mainly appreciated the evidence that was collected by the Assessment Officer. They came to a conclusion that the respondent did not conceal his income or was guilty of submitting fictitious return. 4. There appears no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. [ V.K. JADHAV, J. ] [ A.V. NIRGUDE,J. ] sgp
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
