PRI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 v. M/S KUNVARJI COMMODITIES BROKERS PVT.LTD
[Citation -2015-LL-1102]

Citation 2015-LL-1102
Appellant Name PRI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
Respondent Name M/S KUNVARJI COMMODITIES BROKERS PVT.LTD.
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/11/2015
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • undisclosed income • legal infirmity
Bot Summary: The assessment year is 2005-06 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2004-05. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate with Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the respondent. It is an admitted position that the questions involved in the present case are similar to the questions involved in Tax Appeal No.610/2015. By an order dated 6th October, 2015 made in Tax Appeal No.610/2015 in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M/s. Kunvarji Finance Private Limited, proposed question B came to be rejected. Proposed question A merely relates to proposed question B. Under the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the order dated 6th October, 2015 made in Tax Appeal No.610/2015, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeal fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed.


O/TAXAP/606/2015 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO.606 of 2015 ============================================= PRI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1....Appellant(s) Versus M/S KUNVARJI COMMODITIES BROKERS PVT.LTD.....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No.1 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE with MR BS SOPARKAR, CAVEATOR for Opponent(s) No.1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 02/11/2015 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ), appellant - revenue has challenged order dated 19 th March, 2015 made by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) in IT(SS)A No.677/Ahd/2010 by proposing following two questions:- [A] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting addition without appreciating full facts of case elaborately dealt with by Assessing Officer and thereby order of Appellate Tribunal is perverse? [B] Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in not appreciating that disclosure of undisclosed income u/s 132(4) of Act made voluntarily and without any element of coercion could not be retracted without cogent evidence? Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed Nov 04 09:46:23 IST 2015 O/TAXAP/606/2015 ORDER 2. assessment year is 2005-06 and corresponding accounting period is previous year 2004-05. 3. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for appellant and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate with Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for respondent. 4. It is admitted position that questions involved in present case are similar to questions involved in Tax Appeal No.610/2015. By order dated 6th October, 2015 made in Tax Appeal No.610/2015 in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M/s. Kunvarji Finance Private Limited, proposed question [B] came to be rejected. Proposed question [A] merely relates to proposed question [B]. Under circumstances, for reasons stated in order dated 6th October, 2015 made in Tax Appeal No.610/2015, it is not possible to state that impugned order passed by Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. ( Harsha Devani, J. ) ( A.G. Uraizee, J. ) hki Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed Nov 04 09:46:23 IST 2015 PRI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 v. M/S KUNVARJI COMMODITIES BROKERS PVT.LTD
Report Error