9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 - M. R. Shah And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. RK Patel, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pranav G. Desai, Advocate ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1.00. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Appeals, they are disposed of by this common order. 2.00. All these Tax Appeals have been preferred by the common appellant - assessee challenging the common impugned judgement and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in ITA Nos.1249 to 1252 of 2010 with respect to Assessment Years 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2006-07. 2.01. It is required to be noted that in the respective appeals, the appellant proposed the following substantial questions of law : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and in law, the Tribunal s and conclusion for confirming addition towards purchases and sales for the year under consideration is in ignorance of relevant material on record and taking aid of irrelevant factors not germane to subject matter of appeal with the result that the finding and conclusion of the Tribunal is vitiated on facts and in law? TAX APPEAL No.849 of 2013 :- 1. Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.6,42,769/- Rs.1,83,168/- towards alleged bogus purchases/sales in contravention of settled principles of law? 2. Whether on facts and in law, the Tribunal has substantially erred in not resorting to provision of section 255 for referring the matter to Full Bench/Special Bench and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax vs. President Industries, reported in 258 ITR 654. It is submitted that though the said decision was cited before the learned tribunal and even the same was so stated in the Written Submission before the learned tribunal, the tribunal has not considered and/or dealt with the same at all. 2.04. Mr.Pranav Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent revenue has tried to support the common order of the tribunal impugned in the main Tax Appeal, however, he has fairly conceded that the learned tribunal has not considered and dealt with the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654, relied upon by the assessee and even cited by the assessee in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied that we have not expressed any opinion on merits whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of this Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs. President Industries (supra) will be applicable or not. It is ultimately for the learned tribunal to consider the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.00. With this, all these appeals are allowed in part and the same are remanded to the learned tribunal to consider the issue with respect to addition made towards alleged bogus purchases/sales and to consider the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654. As stated hereinabove, so far as Question nos.2 and 3 are concerned, by our earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
