Director Of Income Tax (Int.tax) & Anr v. Shri Sandeep Rawat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPURO R D E R D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.286/2009 Director of Income Tax (Int.Tax) & Anr.Vs.Shri Sandeep Rawat Date of Order: August 27, 2012PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA'-HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAINI Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellants BY THE COURT(Per Jain J.) Heardlearnedcounselfortheappellants. 2.This Income Tax Appeal has been filed byRevenue, challenging the order of Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur,whereby appeal of Revenue, against order ofCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wasdismissed and appeal of the assessee was allowed.2.The appeal arises from the AssessmentOrder dated 24[th] March, 2006 for Assessment Year2003-04. Being aggrieved with the AssessmentOrder, the assessee filed an appeal. Theappellate authority i.e. Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-I, Jaipur vide its order dated 28[th]February, 2008 decided the first issue, relatingto trading addition of Rs. 2 Lacs, against asseee, second issue, relating to addition ofRs.18,81,779/-, in favour of assessee. So far ascharge of interest is concerned, it was directedthat the same be recalculated. 3.Being aggrieved with the finding of thefirst issue relating to trading addition of Rs. 2Lacs, the assessee preferred an appeal beforeIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal and against findingwith regard to Issue No.2 relating to addition ofRs. 18,81,779/-, the Revenue preferred an appealbefore the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal vide itsorder dated 17[th] October, 2008 dismissed theappeal of the Revenue and allowed the appeal ofthe assessee. Hence Revenue has preferred thisappeal before this Court. 4.Learned counsel for the appellantsargued that findings of the Tribunal in respectof both these issues are factually incorrect. Thelearned Tribunal committed an illegality inreversing the finding of Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) with regard to Issue No.1 relatingto trading addition of Rs.2 Lacs. He alsosubmitted that finding of Tribunal with respectto another issue relating to addition ofRs.18,81,779/- is also incorrect. 5.We have considered the submissions oflearned counsel for the appellants in the lightof reasons assigned by the Tribunal. We have alsoexamined orders of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as well as Assessing Officer. We findthat both points involved in the present appeal and the questions of law framed by appellants inthe memo of appeal are relating to questions offacts. It is a settled law that the Income Taxappeals can be admitted by High Court onsubstantial questions of law. The finding of factcannot be interferred with. 6.That apart, from the application filedby appellants showing the tax effect involving inthe present appeal, it appears that the taxeffect involved in the case is Rs. 2 Lacs, asmentioned in Para 4 of the application dated 2[nd]July, 2012. Appeal was filed on 9[th] March, 2009,whereas appeal could not have been filed at therelevant time, wherein tax effect was less thanRs. 4 Lacs. 7.Since no substantial question of law isinvolved in this appeal, therefore, the same isdismissed in limine. I.A. No. 19915/2012 alsostands disposed off. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. BKS/- “All corrections made in the judgment/orderhave been incorporated in the judgment/order beingemailed.” B.K. SHRIVASTAVAPRIVATE SECRETARY