Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/876/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 876 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I....Appellant(s) Versus GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD.....Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Date : 10/12/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) dated 15/02/2013 in ITA No. 651/Ahd/2009 for the Assessment Year 2005-06, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, ITAT is right in deleting the addition made by the A.O. in respect of commission payment to the Directors of Rs.88,00,000/- as the assessee failed to prove that the payment were made exclusively for the business?” 2.Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri J.P. Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opponent-assessee and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT. It is not in dispute that in the previous year i.e. Assessment Year 2003-04 similar addition was made by the Assessing Officer, which has been set aside by the ITAT and the order passed by the ITAT deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the similar ground has attained finality. While passing the impugned judgment and order, ITAT has relied upon its own decision with respect to the earlier Assessment Year 2003-04. Under the circumstances, with respect to the Assessment Year 2005-06 also when ITAT has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of commission of payment to the Directors of Rs.88,00,000/-, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Siji