The Supreme Court disposed of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the Tribunal's decision favorable to the assessee. The Court held no substantial question of law existed as the issue was purely factual, which was correctly decided by the Tribunal.
The tax case appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. No 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.NO.731 OF 2013
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant
-vs-
M/s.Laxmi Jewellery, No.65, NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079.
... Respondent
PRAYER:-
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 08.05.2013 made in I.T.A.No.685/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2008-09.
This Appeal filed against the Order of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated 08.05.2013 in I.T.A.No.685/MDS/2012 in Assessment Year 2008-2009, against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV in ITA.No.167/2010-11/ A-IV, dated 15.12.2011 in PAN.No.AAAFL0161F in assessment year 2008-2009, against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, PAN.No.AAAFL0161F in Assessment Year 2008-2009.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.T.Prmod Kumar Chopda
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the order dated 08.05.2013 made
in I.T.A.No.685/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai (for brevity “the Tribunal”) for the assessment year 2008-09.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering the ground raised by the revenue with respect to the addition of 6381.2 grams of unaccounted gold to the closing stock, which the assessee claimed to have belonged to Mr.Arun Jain.”
that the addition may be confirmed and sustained. Thus, on examination of the factual position, relief was granted to the assessee. The correctness of this finding was tested by the Tribunal once over again, the factual details were considered and the Tribunal in Paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, has concurred with the decision of the CIT(A).
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
+1cc to Mr.T.Prmod Kumar Chopda, Advocate, S.R.No.39318
T.C.A.NO.731 OF 2013
VSN-II(CO) PBS/27/08/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises regarding the Tribunal's failure to consider the ground raised by the revenue about unaccounted gold.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
M/s. Laxmi Jewellery
T.S. Sivagnanam
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
