The Commissioner of Income-tax­-16 v. Harakchand Gada
[Citation -2015-LL-0309-27]

Citation 2015-LL-0309-27
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax­-16
Respondent Name Harakchand Gada
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 09/03/2015
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • unexplained cash credit • share trading • exemption of long-term capital gain
Bot Summary: The appellant revenue has formulated following questions of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the appellate order bearing no. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified on relying the decision of Mr. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia decided by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay despite the fact the said decision had not been accepted by the department and SLP had been recommended to the CBDT 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 8 August 2012 is a common order which also disposed of an appeal relating to Mrs. Kasturba H. Gada for the Assessment Year 2006 07. The revenue had preferred an appeal against the impugned order in case of Kasturba H. Gada being Income Tax Appeal No. 299/2013 and this Court by its order dated 21 January 2015 found that no substantial question of law arises and refused to entertain the appeal. Mr. Malhotra, the learned Counsel appearing for revenue fairly states that the question as proposed by the revenue stands concluded against the revenue so far as this Court is concerned by the order of this Court in the case of Kasturba H. Gada rendered on 21 January 2015. Mr. Malhotra clarifies that he is not aware whether the revenue has accepted the decision of this Court in the case of Kasturba H. S.S.DESHPANDE 2 / 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 14:32:33 ::: 26.ITXA.686. Accordingly no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.


26.ITXA.686.13.sxw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 16 ..Appellant Vs. Harakchand Gada ..Respondent .... Mr. A.R. Malhotra, Advcoate for Appellant. Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Advocate for Respondent. .... CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 09 MARCH 2015 P.C.: This appeal by revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges order dated 8 August 2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') for Assessment Year 2006 07. 2. appellant revenue has formulated following questions of law for our consideration: (A) Whether on facts and circumstance of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in upholding appellate order bearing no. CIT(A)/27/ITO 16(2) (4)/245/08 09 dated 24.12.2009 wherein CIT(A) allowed claim of assessee that addition of S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 14:32:33 ::: 26.ITXA.686.13.sxw Rs.21,82,494/ made by A.O. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Act was received from share trading activities as L.T.C.G. and entitled of exemption u/s 10(38) of Act. (B) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified on relying decision of Mr. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia decided by Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay despite fact said decision had not been accepted by department and SLP had been recommended to CBDT? 3. impugned order of Tribunal dated 8 August 2012 is common order which also disposed of appeal relating to Mrs. Kasturba H. Gada for Assessment Year 2006 07. revenue had preferred appeal against impugned order in case of Kasturba H. Gada being Income Tax Appeal No. 299/2013 and this Court by its order dated 21 January 2015 found that no substantial question of law arises and refused to entertain appeal. 4. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for revenue fairly states that question as proposed by revenue stands concluded against revenue so far as this Court is concerned by order of this Court in case of Kasturba H. Gada rendered on 21 January 2015. Mr. Malhotra clarifies that he is not aware whether revenue has accepted decision of this Court in case of Kasturba H. S.S.DESHPANDE 2 / 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 14:32:33 ::: 26.ITXA.686.13.sxw Gada (supra). Be that as it may, no reason is shown to us to differ from view taken by us in Kasturba H. Gada (supra). 5. Accordingly no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Hence appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. [G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 3 / 3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 14:32:33 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-16 v. Harakchand Gada
Report Error