The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanti Venechand Shah
[Citation -2014-LL-0926-145]

Citation 2014-LL-0926-145
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Kanti Venechand Shah
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/09/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags share transaction • capital gain • long-term capital gain
Bot Summary: CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 26th September, 2014 P.C.: 1 After having heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and perusing the Tribunal's findings in Income Tax Appeal Nos.4858/MUM/2010 and 4859/MUM/2010 we are of the opinion that repeatedly and consistently the Tribunal has been reminding the Assessing Officer and sometimes the Commissioner of Income Tax that only volume of transactions was not enough for arriving at a conclusion that the Assessee is engaged in trading of shares. In all such cases and we have noted number of them, the declaration of long term capital gain on the share transaction is accepted by the Assessing Officer and he allowed the exemptions for certain number of years. The Assessing Officer picks up some volume of transactions and in the given assessment year and then raises this issue that the Assessee is in the business of shares. 2 To our mind, when the factual findings are reappreciated and reappraised by the Tribunal and it arrives at a conclusion not acceptable to the Revenue that does not mean that the Revenue should go on and bring in appeals. When the Revenue has not questioned the approach of the Assessing Officer and for years together in the case of the present Assessee that we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in arriving at the conclusions recorded in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order. In the present case, the Revenue has been rightly faulted by the Tribunal. Merely because the Revenue's approach has been criticized does not mean that we should entertain the Appeals.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2012 ALONG WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax. Appellant Versus Shri Kanti Venechand Shah. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr.Abhay Ahuja, for Appellant. Mr.Pramod K. Parida with Ms.Sanjukta Chowdhary i/by PKP Legal Solutions, for Respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 26th September, 2014 P.C.: 1 After having heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Revenue and perusing Tribunal's findings in Income Tax Appeal Nos.4858/MUM/2010 and 4859/MUM/2010 we are of opinion that repeatedly and consistently Tribunal has been reminding Assessing Officer and sometimes Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that only volume of transactions was not enough for arriving at conclusion that Assessee is engaged in trading of shares. In all such cases and we have noted number of them, declaration of long term capital gain on share transaction is accepted by Assessing Officer and he allowed exemptions for certain number of years. There is no dispute in such matters that Assessees are showing shares as ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 11:23:27 ::: *2* itxa.1166.1167.12.27.28.con investment in balance sheet and same treatment is given by them in assessment year after year. However, Assessing Officer picks up some volume of transactions and in given assessment year and then raises this issue that Assessee is in business of shares. 2 To our mind, when factual findings are reappreciated and reappraised by Tribunal and it arrives at conclusion not acceptable to Revenue that does not mean that Revenue should go on and bring in appeals. When Revenue has not questioned approach of Assessing Officer and for years together in case of present Assessee that we do not find that Tribunal has committed any error in arriving at conclusions recorded in paragraphs 9 and 10 of impugned order. In present case, Revenue has been rightly faulted by Tribunal. Such findings of fact, therefore, do not raise any substantial question of law. Merely because Revenue's approach has been criticized does not mean that we should entertain Appeals. Appeals are devoid of any merits and are dismissed. No costs. (A.K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Uploaded on - 30/09/2014 Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 11:23:27 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanti Venechand Shah
Report Error