Appellant v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Special Range 30, Mumbai 20. Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2002 Navnitlal & Co. Appellant vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,Special Range 30, Mumbai 20.Respondent Ms.Asifa Khan i/b. Ms.Jyoti Dailani for the appellant. P.C. CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 11th October 2004 Heard. 2. The Income Tax appellate Tribunal in its orderobserved thus:observed thus: "6. We have given a careful consideration tothe rival submissions and the facts of thecase in the light of the material presentedbefore us. We are of the opinion that on thefacts of the case the CIT was competent topass the order u/s. 263 as the issue whetherthe gross financing charges or the netfinancing charges are to be included in thetotal turnover was not considered by the A.O.and this issue was not the subject matter ofappeal before the CIT(A). The assessee hadincluded only net financing charges in thetotal turnover whereas it should have includedthe gross financing charges in the totalturnover. Thus, by doing so more deductionu/s.80HHC was allowed and thus the order ofthe A.O. became erroneous in so far as it wasprejudicial to the interest of revenue. Eventhough the CIT(A) had dealt with the deduction 248 ITR 126 has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. No substantial question of law arises. 6. Dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)