2016 (2) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) had only followed the consistent view of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the earlier Assessment Years. Also see CIT Vs. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Caroe, (1990 (9) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court ) while dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. P. C. Chhotaray For the Respondent : Mr. Atul Jasani ORDER P. C. This Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) assails the order dated 14th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal relates to Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. The appellant Revenue urges following question of law for our consideration. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tional question of law which reads as under : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee has adopted colourable device to evade tax?" We are unable to understand how the additional question of law can arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. At no point of time before the authorities or before the Tribunal, the Revenue has urged that respondent-assessee had adopted any colourable device to evade tax. The appeal memo before us also does not refer to the above issue even remotely. This question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and therefore as held by this Court in CIT Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 395 and CIT Vs.Smt. Lata Shantilal Shah (2010) 323 ITR 297, such a question cann .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .'s income. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal was at variance with a view taken by this Court in Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe (supra) as well as in the respondent-assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.860 of 2009 (the Commissioner of Income Tax - 11 Vs. M/s.Kanga & Co.) decided on 19/06/2009. Therefore the appeal of M/s. S.B.Billimoria & Co. has been admitted because it takes a view different from the view taken by this Court. The reliance upon the admission of M/s.S.B.Billimoria & Co.'s appeal (Income Tax Appeal No. 940 of 2009) does not support cause of the Revenue. 8. Before closing, we would observe that judicial time is very precious in view of the large numbers of Income Tax Appeals pending disposal befor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X