Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Revabhai N Patel....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1592/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1592 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?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 ?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-III....Appellant(s) Versus REVABHAI N PATEL....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ================================================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKERDate : 02/12/2014ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.This is an appeal by the appellant- revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the O/TAXAP/1592/2008 JUDGMENT learned ITAT, Bench ‘C’, Ahmedabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), Dated : 17.02.2006, rendered in ITA No.2783/Ahd/2000 for the A.Y. 1997-1998, whereby, it dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 2.The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-assessee, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 1997-98 on 29.10.1997, declaring its total income at Rs.25,932/-. During the course of assessment, the concerned AO found that the assessed had received Rs.30,00,000/- as consultancychargesandhadclaimed Rs.29,20,269/- as interest expenditure. Being aggrieved with the same, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue both approached the Tribunal, which passed the impugned order. Hence, the Revenue preferred the present appeal, raising the following questions of law; “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) directing to allow the entire interest expenditure of Rs.16,43,830/- and the tax the balance as business income? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that the income of the assessee from his proprietory concern is assessable under the head “Profit and Gains of Business” and that the interest claimed by the assessee was an allowable deduction?” 3.Before proceeding with the matter any further, here, it would be relevant to note that this matter was ordered to be heard with Tax Appeal No. 1922 of 2008, which was another appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in case of the very assessee for the different assessment year. Today, when this matter was taken-up for hearing, it was reported that Tax Appeal No. 1922 of 2008 has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.02.2011. 4.While disposing of Tax Appeal No. 1922 of 2009, this Court observed as under; under the head “Profit and Gains of Business” and that the interest claimed by the assessee was an allowable deduction?” 3.Before proceeding with the matter any further, here, it would be relevant to note that this matter was ordered to be heard with Tax Appeal No. 1922 of 2008, which was another appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in case of the very assessee for the different assessment year. Today, when this matter was taken-up for hearing, it was reported that Tax Appeal No. 1922 of 2008 has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.02.2011. 4.While disposing of Tax Appeal No. 1922 of 2009, this Court observed as under; “Upon hearing learned counsel for the Revenue as well as on perusal of the orders on record, we find that CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had concurrently held the issues against the Revenue. The questions are purely factual in nature. The Tribunal in particular in its detailed discussion upheld the view of the CIT (Appeals) holding that the Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings which are solely based on the terms and conditions of the agreement and other facts on record. The Tribunal, in the result, concluded that there was justification in holding that receipt of Rs.30 lacs was liable to be taxed as income tax from business and was also right in allowing the expenses claimed by the assessee including the interest on borrowings. Since no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the Tax Appeal is dismissed.” 5.In the case on hand also, the question of laws being similar in nature, which pertain to the very same assessee, though, for the different assessment year, this appeal would also be governed by the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No.1922 of 2008. Hence, the present appeal deserves dismissal. 6.In the result, present tax appeal fails and stands dismissed. The questions of law raised in this appeal are answered against the appellant-Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee, accordingly. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) UMESH (K.J.THAKER, J)