Commissioner Of Income Taxi v. Gupta Domestic Fuels (Nagpur) Ltd
High Court
17 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Taxi v. Gupta Domestic Fuels (Nagpur) Ltd
Date of order
17 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Taxi v. Gupta Domestic Fuels (Nagpur) Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2010
-(Commissioner of Income TaxI vs. Gupta Domestic Fuels (Nagpur) Ltd.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the appellants.
…..
CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. FEBRUARY 17, 2011.
Heard.
The following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration of this Court.
i)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the ITAT is correct in deleting the addition made on account of peak balance of Rs.2,55,29,607/- though the assessee has not discharged its onus by submitting consolidated accounts statements merging the secret note pad/ vouchers and regular books of accounts ?
ii)In the facts and circumstances of the case, can it be held that assessee discharged its onus as well as burden of proof in establishing that unaccounted transactions in secret note pad and vouchers are disclosed to department ?
iii)In the facts and circumstances of the case, is
the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition accepting assessees explanation with regard to secret note pad and secret vouchers ?
However, we find that the aforesaid questions of law do not involve any substantial questions of law but raise questions of fact. Hence, no case for assailing the findings made by the Tribunal is made out and there is no perversity in the order. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.