Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1345/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1345 of 2008
======================================
INCOME
TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)
Versus
HIRALAL
B LALANE PROPRIETOR OF H B ENTERPRISE
======================================
Appearance :
MR
BB NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL, for
Appellant
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 28/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1 The
Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), has filed this Tax Appeal under
Section 260-A of the Income Tax Appeal, 1961, proposing to formulate
the following substantial questions of law for determination and
consideration of this Court:
(1) Whether
on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in directing the Assessing Officer
to compute gross profit @ 2% of the turn over in the trading
activities of diamond, instead of disallowance @ 25% of the
inflated purchases, made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by
the Appellate Commissioner?
(2) Whether
on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse or not?
2 Heard
Mr. B.B. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Revenue and
perused the orders passed by the authorities below.
3 The
question itself indicates that it is in respect of computing gross
profit of the turn over. The Tribunal has directed to compute
gross profit at 2% of the turn over in the trading activities
of diamond instead of 25% at the inflated purchases. The
Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision while issuing
direction to compute gross profit at 2% of the turn over.
4 This
being the finding of fact, no substantial question of law arises
in this Appeal for determination and consideration of this Court,
not can it be said that the order passed by the Tribunal is without
any application of mind or it is a perverse order.
We, therefore, do not see any substance in this Appeal and, hence,
the Appeal is summarily dismissed.
(K.A.
PUJ, J.)
(RAJESH
H. SHUKLA, J.)
pnnair
Top