Appellant Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1) Raipur v. Respondents M/S Bhojraj Hiralal Shop

^sy"^fM^F-.-.•••''-.?:-")?A..'''"w^^^' !lN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, CJ.HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J. Tax Case No.15 of 2006 Appellant AppellantIncome Tax Officer Ward 2 (1) RaipurVERSUSRespondentsM/s Bhojraj Hiralal Shop No.32/83, Halwailane Sadar Bazar, Raipur Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the Appellant.Shri Shashank Dubey, Senior Advocate with Shri AnandMohan Tiwari, counsel for the Respoodent. Judaement(5thAugust, 2013) 1 .This is an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department (the Department)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (theTribunal) dated 31.05.2006 partly allowing the appeal of M/s BhoajrajHiralal, Raipur (the Assesses) in respect of the Assessment year (AY)1999-2000. THE FACTS 2. A survey was conducted in the business premises of the Assessee on10.03.1999.Shri Maheer Chand Jain, one of the partners of theAssessee surrendered a sum of?9,65,117/- on 13.03.1999. 3.Subsequently, the Assessee filed its return on 30.12.1999 declaringthe total income of?1,96,350/-. 4.The Assessing Officer (the AO) completed the assessment on27.07.2001 and assessed the total income of ?2,72,700/-. 5. The aforesaid order was set aside 'by the Commissioner Income Taxunder section 263 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and directed theAO to make fresh assessment after detailed enquiry. Thereafter, the AOassessed the income of the Assessee at ?7,40.700/-. .fCSeas^>~s%.;^' .^£s^?'tf-_2 It^"^i-^^, i3l' S*%.<.^...t/ ^^^•^^^ V'^af 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (the CIT-A). 7. The CIT-A enhanced the total income of the Assessee to ?7,99,051/-.However, he further field that there was a business loss of 73,58,051/-,which was permitted to be carried forward to the next AY. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It was allowed on 31.05.2006 holding that: The income of the Assessee of Rs.7,99,051/- to be the incomefrom other sources;from other sources; The Assessee wasentitledtoset off of businessloss of?3,58,051/- in the same AY.?3,58,051/- in the same AY. Hence, the present appeal by the Department. THE DECISION 9. We have heard counsel for the parties. 10. It is not disputed that: The tax effect in this appeal is the tax payable by the Assessee onthe amountof?3,58,051/-;the amountof?3,58,051/-; The Board instructions applioable at the time for filing appeal bythe Department under section 260A of the Act was that the appealcould be filed only if the tax effect was more than ?4,00,000/-.the Department under section 260A of the Act was that the appealcould be filed only if the tax effect was more than ?4,00,000/-. 11.The tax effect in this appeal is on the tax payable on the sum of?3,58,051/-. Thus, it can never be more than ?4,00,000/-.?3,58,051/-. Thus, it can never be more than ?4,00,000/-. 12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on the ground oftax effect. Sd/-ChiefJustice Sd/-Pritinker DiwakarJudge