Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.everest Gems

bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1284 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Everest Gems ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.K.R.Chaudhari i/b.Ms.Anuradha Mane for appellant. Mr.Nitesh Joshi i/b. Dadhich & Co. for respondent. P.C. 1.Heard. Perused appeal. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 10[th] NOVEMBER,2009 DATE : 2.The question sought to be raised in the appeal has already been dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph No.4 of its order, the portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow: Therefore, the assessee has to value the debtors in respect of the above two categories at the exchange rate agreed upon and already known to the parties. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the assessee has violated the statutory provision in the matter of revaluation of debtors, in respect of forward contract and discounted cases. In fact this method has been consistently followed by the assessee company and accepted by the department in the past therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification in the action of the lower authorities in making addition of Rs.62,32,031 on this ground of error in the revaluation of foreign exchange debtors. The addition of Rs.62,32,031 is, accordingly, deleted. 3.The perusal of the aforesaid extracted portion, will show that the method of accounting has been consistently followed by the assessee company and accepted by the Revenue in the past. The assessee has also filed an affidavit that not only in the past but also in all the subsequent years this method has been followed by the assessee and accepted by the Revenue. Affidavit of Russel A.Mehta, dated 7[th] October, 2009 is taken on record. 4.Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter but to dispose of holding that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law in view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue in the past and for subsequent years. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)