Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/974/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 974 of
2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
Versus
JAYENDRAKUMAR
HIRALAL KHARAWALA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
MANISH R. BHATT WITH MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant
None for
Opponent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date
: 25/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
The
appellant-revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1993-94, proposing to
formulate the following substantial question of law for
determination and consideration of this Court.
Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming
the order passed by the CIT(A) in reducing the addition made on
account of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress from
Rs.10,87,213/- to Rs.1,02,052/-?
Heard
Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs.
Mauna M. Bhatt for the revenue and perused the orders passed by the
authorities below.
The
brief facts giving rise to this Tax Appeal are that the assessee
filed the return of income on 27.12.1993 showing loss of
Rs.37,392/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of
the Act on 25.03.1996 determining the total income at Rs.17,12,419/-
as against the returned loss of Rs.37,392/-. While finalizing the
assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions/disallowances to
the returned income with regard to under valuation of work in
progress of Rs.10,87,213/-.
Being
aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee
preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who after calling for the Remand
Report from the Assessing Officer, granted relief to the assessee,
in respect of under valuation of work in progress to the extent of
Rs.9,85,161/-.
Being
aggrieved by the said order of CIT(A), the revenue preferred second
appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated
08.06.2007 restricted the addition on account of under valuation of
work in progress at Rs.3,63,300/- as against the addition
sustained by the CIT(A) at Rs.1,02,053/-.
Mr.
Bhatt has submitted that the Assessing Officer had submitted a
detailed Remand Report to the CIT(A). Despite this fact, the CIT(A)
has granted relief to the assessee to the extent of under valuation
of work in progress of Rs.9,85,161/-. Though, the Tribunal has
partly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue and restricted the
addition on account of under valuation of work in progress at
Rs.3,63,300/-, the Assessing Officer’s order has not been restored
by the appellate authority and hence the present Tax Appeal is filed
by the revenue.
Having
considered the submissions
of Mr. Bhatt and having gone through the order passed by the
Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has properly
considered the controversy
between the assessee and revenue, and after properly applying its
mind on the basis of the material available on record,
appropriately modified the order passed by the CIT(A). It can not
therefore, be said that the Tribunal’s order is based on any
non-application of mind or any perversity. Since the finding of
facts arrived at by the Tribunal are based on material available on
record, no substantial question of law arises out of the order of
the Tribunal. We, therefore, summarily dismiss this Tax Appeal.
(K.A.
PUJ, J.)
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
Pankaj
Top