Itxa/1166/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. Shri Kanti Venechand Shah

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2012ALONG WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant-Versus-Shri Kanti Venechand Shah...Respondent ........... Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr.Abhay Ahuja, for the Appellant.Mr.Pramod K. Parida with Ms.Sanjukta Chowdhary i/by PKP Legal Solutions, for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 26[th] September, 2014 P.C.: 1After having heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and perusing the Tribunal's findings in Income Tax Appeal Nos.4858/MUM/2010 and 4859/MUM/2010 we are of the opinion that repeatedly and consistently the Tribunal has been reminding the Assessing Officer and sometimes the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that only volume of transactions was not enough for arriving at a conclusion that the Assessee is engaged in trading of shares. In all such cases and we have noted number of them, the declaration of long term capital gain on the share transaction is accepted by the Assessing Officer and he allowed the exemptions for certain number of years. There is no dispute in such matters that the Assessees are showing the shares as itxa.1166.1167.12.27.28.con investment in balance-sheet and same treatment is given by them in the assessment year after year. However, the Assessing Officer picks up some volume of transactions and in the given assessment year and then raises this issue that the Assessee is in the business of shares. 2To our mind, when the factual findings are reappreciated and reappraised by the Tribunal and it arrives at a conclusion not acceptable to the Revenue that does not mean that the Revenue should go on and bring in appeals. When the Revenue has not questioned the approach of the Assessing Officer and for years together in the case of the present Assessee that we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in arriving at the conclusions recorded in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order. In the present case, the Revenue has been rightly faulted by the Tribunal. Such findings of fact, therefore, do not raise any substantial question of law. Merely because the Revenue's approach has been criticized does not mean that we should entertain the Appeals. The Appeals are devoid of any merits and are dismissed. No costs. (A.K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)