Ita/129/1999 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Jabalpur v. M/S Khemchand Motilal Jain Sagar

I.T.A. No.129/1999 11.1.2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the appellant/Department. Heard on the question of admission. Challenging an order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal vide Annexure C on 13.8.1999, this appeal has beenfiled by the Revenue Department under Section 260-A. It is pending since 1999 and till date even substantialquestions of law have not been framed and notice issued to therespondents. The appeal was filed in the year 1999 but aftercreation of State of Chhattisgarh the matter was transferred toHigh Court of Chhattisgarh and vide order dated 13.8.2009finding the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter vestingwith the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the matter has beenreceived on transfer from the High Court of Chhattisgarh andafter 13.8.2009 is being listed today for the first time. Respondent is a manufacturer of Bidies and for theassessment year in question certain additions made by theAssessing Officer were partly allowed by the Commissioner ofAppeals at the instance of the revenue and challenging theorders passed it seems that appeals and cross objections werefiled by the revenue and the assessee having been allowed andthe appeal of the revenue being dismissed, this appeal has beenfiled under section 260 and the substantial question of lawraised in this appeal reads as under :- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the learned Tribunal was legally justifiedin dismissing the appeal preferred by therevenue and the partly allowing the objectionfiled by the assessee ?” On going through the memorandum of appeal we find thatin Paragraphs No.1 and 2 the facts with regard to theproceedings held are narrated and in Grounds No. (A) and (B).The only ground canvased was that the order of the Tribunalsuffers from patent error and illegality and deserves to be setaside. We find from a detailed order passed by the AppellateTribunal that the Tribunal has found that remunerations paid tothe directors and claimed as deductions were disallowed in anillegal manner and interfered with the orders of assessment.Cross objections also filed with regard to expenses incurredtowards various entertainment and other claims were allowedby the Appellate Tribunal. Keeping in view the detailed reasons indicated in theorder passed by the Appellate Tribunal, we find no substantialquestion of law warranting consideration. dismissed.Accordingly the appeal stands (Rajendra Menon) Acting Chief Justice Anchal (Smt. Anjuli Palo) Judge