Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Chandrakant Swaroopch And Lodha (Huf

SRK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.997 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income tax-1 V/S Chandrakant Swaroopch and Lodha (HUF) .. Appellant .. Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Vipul Arun Bajpayee for the revenue. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 8[th] October, 2014 P.C.: We have heard Mr. Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revenue in support of this appeal. The block assessment for the assessment years 1991-92 and 2001-02, was the subject matter of appeal being Income tax Appeal No.291 of 2004 before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench. 2. Mr. Gupta would submit that the question at para 4(A) at page 5 of the paper-book is a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal be admitted. 3.We have perused the order of the Tribunal in relation to this question and the finding of fact is that there is no evidence to indicate that the assessee earned interest in the impugned transactions and involving a cycle. Therefore, the Assessing Officer’s assumption that the assessee must have earned interest income on the sum involved in this transaction is SRK ita-997-12.doc nothing but conjecture and surmises on the part of the Assessing Officer. The impugned addition cannot be, therefore, within the perview of the block assessment year. Such a finding of fact and rendered in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4.Even with regard to the second question, the finding of fact in para 26 cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the fact of the record. The relationship with the third party Mr. Thakker even found to be longstanding one. In these circumstances, even this question cannot be entertained. The appeal is dismissed. (A.K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)