Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.icici Prudential Life Insurance Co.ltd

bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1345 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1625 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.B.M.Chatterjee a/w.Mrs.Padma Divakar for appellant.Mr.S.E.Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr.V.A.Vessanjee and Mr.S.J.Mehta for respondent. P.C. 1.Heard. Perused appeals. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER,2009 2.Mr.Chatterjee tried to canvass that the Assessing Officer did not take into account the actuarial valuation report for the period ended on 31[st] March, 2001 and 31[st] March, 2002 respectively and therefore, the Revisional Authority was justified in exercising the powers u/s.263 of the Act and that the Tribunal was in error in setting aside that part of the order. Mr.Dastur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out from the order of the Revisional Authority that actuarial report for the year ended on 31[st] March, 2003 was submitted vide Item No.9 of the assessee’s reply dated 27[th] December, 2005 during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.2003-04 and the Revisional Authority was satisfied that this ground for invoking powers u/s.263 of the Act was not legal and valid, with the result, the power u/s.263 of the Act was not invoked on that ground. 3.In the above view of the matter, the said question did not arise for consideration before the Tribunal. If this be so, the question sought to be raised by the appellant in this appeal does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The submission, thus, made by Mr.Chatterjee does not hold water. 4.Mr.Chatterjee, so far as other questions sought to be raised in the appeal are concerned, fairly states that they have been dealt with by the Tribunal with which no fault can be found. 5.In the above view of the matter, none of the questions need consideration. The appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law. Both the appeals, thus, stand dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)