Income Tax Appeal v. M/S Rajmal Lakhichand

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, NashikAPPELLANT VERSUS M/s Rajmal Lakhichand RESPONDENT AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, NashikAPPELLANT VERSUS M/s Rajmal Lakhichand RESPONDENT .....Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate for the appellantin both the appeals.Mr. Subodh P. Shah, Advocate for the respondentin both the appeals. ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 22nd January, 2014 PER COURT : Having heard Mr. D.V. Soman, learned counsel (2) appearing for the appellants and perusing, with his assistance, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error of law or perversity in arriving at a conclusion that the purchases from eighteen Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) were legally and properly made. Finding of fact is recorded after culling out the correct proposition of law from the decisions relied upon. 2.After the Assessee has produced the relevant documents like customer’s receipts, purchase vouchers with regard to purchases from eighteen NRIs, then the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the Assessee before it was dealing in gold and silver items. He has accounted for all the purchases in question. In these circumstances, the stock allegedly termed as contraband was undisputedly a stock-in-trade of the Assessee and confiscation thereof resulted in business loss. In such circumstances and when the attempt is to have a re-appreciationandre-appraisal,whichis impermissible, then the appeals cannot be (3) entertained. These appeals do not give any rise to substantial questions of law. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ] JUDGE [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI ] JUDGE npj/ta32-34-12