Dhiren A. Modi v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Taxcentral Circle-17, Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1144 OF 2004 Dhiren A. Modi ).. Appellant Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxCentral Circle-17, Mumbai )).. Respondent Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Appellant. Mr Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE:8TH JULY 2008. P.C. The present Appeal is directed against the order of theTribunal dated 26[th] July 2004. Vide this order, the Tribunal found noinfirmity with the order of CIT (Appeals) and the Appeal preferred by theassessee was dismissed. While impugning the above order in thepresent Appeal, the Appellant has suggested and raised the followingquestions of law:- “(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal was justified in law in not giving anyfinding with regards to the ground of appeal relating tothe reopening of the assessment for the assessmentyear 1999-2000 after noting the contentions of theparties ? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of thecase and in law the Assessing Officer was justified inissuing notice under section 148 of the Act to theAppellant inasmuch as the re-opening was done onthe basis of investigation conducted by FERAauthorities in October, 1996 and such material wouldobviously not have any bearing on assessment year1999-2000 ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirmingthe addition of Rs. 3,89,990/- made on account ofalleged income of six parties treating them as benamiof the Appellant even though they having deniedcarrying on of any business during the assessmentyear 1999-2000 ? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirmingthe addition on Rs.3,89,990/- made in violation of theprinciples of natural justice inasmuch as the Appellantwas not furnished with the material relied upon formaking the addition in the hands of the Appellant ? (e) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the finding of the Tribunal that the Petitionercarried on the business in the name of six concerns isperverse and/or contrary to the material on recordsinasmuch as three parties out of six were assessed totax by the department on substantive basis ?” 2.During the course of arguments, the learned Counselappearing for the Appellant mainly emphasized that the first question isa question of law inasmuch as the Income Tax authorities could nothave re-opened the assessment for the year 1999-2000 as, accordingto the assessee, they were carrying no business since December 1996.Some statements which have been placed on record are relied upon forthis purpose. 3.Firstly, we are of the considered view that no question of lawarises in the present case much less substantial question of law. It ispure matter of appreciation of evidence based upon the record.Further, we may notice that even this ground was not raised before theTribunal in the grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee and correctly sothe Tribunal has not discussed this issue at all. We cannot permit theAppellant to raise this ground in argument before this Court for the firsttime. In the circumstances above referred, we find no merits in theAppeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.