1 TXA No.15 & 19 of 19 dtd. 11.02.20 Suchitra IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.15 OF 2019 AND TAX APPEAL NO.19 OF 2019 TAX APPEAL NO.15 OF 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Patto, Panaji Goa. Appellant Versus Shri Narayan Rajaram Bandekar, Nitin Chambers, Post Box No.31, Swantantrapath, Vasco-Da-Gama-Goa. Respondent AND TAX APPEAL NO.19 OF 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Patto, Panaji Goa. Appellant Versus Smt. Manda Narayan Bandekar, 601, 6th Floor, Dr. Ozler Forum, St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Vasco-Da-Gama-Goa-403802. Respondent Ms. A. Razaq, Advocate for Appellant. 2 TXA No.15 & 19 of 19 dtd. 11.02.20 Coram:- M.S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ. Date:- 11th February, 2020 ORAL ORDER (Per M.S. Sonak, J.) Heard Ms. Razaq, learned standing counsel for Appellant. 2. On 13.01.2020, after noticing that tax effect in these appeals is less than `50 lakhs, we had required appellant to satisfy this Court as to why these appeals are still being pursued, particularly since, vide CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 limits have been enhanced to `1 crore. 3. In response, Ms. Razaq, refers to instructions dated 20.08.2018, in which, it is stated that adverse judgments relating to certain issues should be contested on merits not withstanding that tax effect entailed is less than monetary limits specified in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018, which is relevant circular when it comes to tax limits and policy of non-pursuance of matters below particular tax limit. Ms. Razaq points out that one of instances where tax appeals are to be pursued is where addition is based on information received from external sources in nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate 3 TXA No.15 & 19 of 19 dtd. 11.02.20 General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). She submits that in present case, addition was based on information received from one of such external sources i.e. DRI. 4. According to us, explanation furnished by Ms. Razaq is quite satisfactory and there is really no reason to require appellant to withdraw present appeals. 5. On merits, Ms. Razaq urges framing of following substantial questions of law: A. Whether in facts and circumstances of case ld. ITAT is justified in confirming deleting addition on account of disallowance on account of unpaid creditors under section 41(1) as assessee could not produce any confirmation from said creditors, as mandated by law; and hence finding is legally perverse. B. Whether in facts and circumstances of case Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting addition on account of under invoicing as per DRI report when assessee had admittedly not credited full sales value nor claimed corresponding expenditure toward alleged commission, genuineness of such commission has not been established, TDS was not deducted thereon if any, and foreign agent was admittedly close family of Assessee. C. Whether in facts and circumstances of case ld. ITAT acted with perversity in deleting addition on account of contingent liability, when dispute on this issue is still admittedly pending in civil court. 4 TXA No.15 & 19 of 19 dtd. 11.02.20 6. According to us, main substantial question of law, if at all, is one at (B) above. However, we find that in Tax Appeal No.4/2019, this question, has been answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Tax Appeal No.4/2019 in fact arose from out of decision of ITAT in Case No.188/PAN/2016. This appeal was taken up for consideration together with Case Nos.189/PAN/2016 and No.190/PAN/2016. These appeals arise out of Case Nos.189/PAN/2016 and No.190/PAN/2016. 7. Obviously therefore, decision in Tax Appeal No.4/2019 will cover decision of substantial question of law at (B). There is accordingly no reason to admit these appeals on substantial question of law at (B) as proposed by Ms. Razaq, learned standing counsel for appellant. 8. In so far as substantial questions of law at (A) and (C) are concerned, we have heard Ms. Razaq regards same. However, we note that both these questions are basically questions of fact. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both CIT (Appeals) as well as ITAT. We are not persuaded to hold that there is any perversity involved in record of such concurrent findings of fact. In absence of any perversity, we cannot say that these appeals gave rise to any substantial question of law as such. 5 TXA No.15 & 19 of 19 dtd. 11.02.20 9. Accordingly, for aforesaid reasons, we dismiss these appeals. There shall be no order as to costs. SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J. ss Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji v. Narayan Rajaram Bandekar