Revenue challenged penalty deletions by the tribunal. The High Court dismissed appeals, holding that while there was no conclusive evidence, the tribunal's view was not perverse, raising no substantial question of law.
None. Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
42-ITXA.421.2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2014 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 693 OF 2014
Commissioner of Income Tax-25 } Appellant versus K. N. Shaikh } Respondent
Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant.
Mr. Prakash Pandit with Mr. Ratnesh Dube for the respondent.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATED :- MARCH 20, 2017
Page 1 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
42-ITXA.421.2014.doc
P.C. :-
Page 2 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
42-ITXA.421.2014.doc
authority. He found out the outer limit and the extent to which the quarrying operations can be carried out. He then found out that the quarrying was done not limited to this extent, but over and above it. Therefore, the difference was worked out and that is how he computed the profits that the assessee generated over above the limited quarrying operations. However, the mistake committed by him is pointed out by the tribunal. Such an order of the District Collector, seeking to recover the differential amount from the quarrying operations in addition to over and above the limit prescribed in the licence, has been passed only in the assessment year 1993-94. Therefore, such an order and passed in the case of the assessee in one assessment year cannot be the basis for prior years or subsequent years. The tribunal recorded a finding of fact that in the quantum appeals, it has confirmed the findings of the first appellate authority in toto. Thus, the estimation of turnover relevant to assessment year 1993-94 as well as business profits adopting flat rate for quantifying the profits cannot be a general formula and for all assessment years. The assessment year-wise incriminating material has not been indicated in the assessing officer's order. It is such a finding, which eventually led the tribunal to employ the words that there is no concrete or conclusive evidence. The tribunal did not insist, as is understood by Mr. Pinto, on such degree of proof. It said, in
Page 3 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
42-ITXA.421.2014.doc
more places than one, that there is no incriminating material and then concluded that there is hardly any concrete evidence, much less conclusive one. That is why neither the tribunal's understanding of the provision empowering imposition of penalty is erroneous in law nor its factual finding. It cannot be termed as perverse once it is consistent with the material placed on record. None of these appeals raise any substantial question of law. They are dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 4 of 4
J.V.Salunke,PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tribunal's finding that there was no conclusive evidence to impose penalty requires substantial question of law on appeal.
Whether the assessing officer's method of computing profits based on a specific year's levy can be generalized for other assessment years.
Commissioner of Income Tax-25
K. N. Shaikh
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
B. P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
