Abhay Jaykumar Chordia v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Pune

suresh 34-ITXA-296.2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.296 OF 2016 Abhay Jaykumar Chordia Vs.Dy. Commissioner of Income TaxCircle 2(1), Pune .... Appellant .... Respondent Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar i/by Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar forthe Appellant.Mr. Sham Walve for the Respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2018 P.C: 1. After having heard both sides and, with the assistance of the appellant's counsel, perusing the impugnedorder of the Tribunal, we do not find that the assessee'sappeal has any merit. 2.None of the questions proposed as substantialquestions of law, can be termed as such. Page 1 of 3 suresh 3.There is a pure finding of fact and the addition ofundisclosed income in the income details of the assessee doesnot suffer from any serious legal infirmity or perversity as isattributed by the assessee's counsel before us. 4.The finding of fact is that when properexplanation was given, the addition was deleted. Theexplanation was very vague and general in terms. If theincome was indeed derived as and by way of salary, then, theassessee should have been careful not to use a vaguenomenclature. It has to be a salary and notsalary/reimbursement/perquisite as is found to beconvenient. Therefore, what is deciphered by the AssessingOfficer and equally by the Commissioner from the use oremployment of the words “mcmg' is nothing, but moneycomes and money goes. If this is termed as a perversity, then,the Tribunal found that when there was a proper connectionestablished, meaning thereby, a relationship not in generalbut legal terms that of employer-employee, then, the amount Page 2 of 3 suresh 34-ITXA-296.2016.doc was deleted as salary/remuneration, but when such writtenwords did not find any reference in the documents to anyincome by way of salary and earned as such, then, theadditions are rightly made. 5.We also do not think that there is any perversityin the finding of fact nor is there such legal infirmity whichwould enable us, as a final Court of appeal, to entertain thisappeal. The appeal can be entertained only if there is asubstantial question of law arising from the order underappeal. When there is no such question arising, then, we arenot bound to admit this appeal. It is entirely frivolous and wedismiss it. There shall be no order as to costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) SureshDigitally signedby Suresh JagdishJagdishSajnawatDate: 2018.08.3116:06:06 +0530Sajnawat Page 3 of 3