Itxa/130/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Iii v. Shsree Panchganga Agro Impex Pvt. Ltd

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.130 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant-Versus-Shree Panchganga Agro Impex Pvt.Ltd....Respondent ........... Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.Padma Divakar, for the Appellant.Mr.Jitendra Jain with Ms.Minal Dedhia i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates, for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 03[rd] July, 2014 P.C.: 1This Appeal is challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal bench at Pune dated 31.05.2011. Mr.Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that the Appeal raises a substantial question of law particularly with regard to the nature of transaction which the Assessee was undertaking. The Tribunal completely erred in holding that majority of shares were sold within the period of 30 to 40 days of their purchases and 3888 shares of TISCO were purchased and sold on the same day on 17.05.2004. All this is indicative of the fact that the purchase and sale of shares was in the nature of “business transaction”. 2In that regard what the Tribunal has noted and in our opinion itxa.130.12.8.doc rightly, is that the Assessee is a Company dealing in dry-fruits and spices. That is its routine business. During the year under consideration, the total sale of shares is to the tune of Rs.218 lacs as compared to the total sales in routine business to the tune of Rs.60.86 crores. Considering the total turnover of the Assessee and shareholders fund, the purchase and sale of shares is not the main activity of the Assessee, but incidental one. It may be that the Assessee has purchased the shares to the tune of Rs.167 lacs and sold them to the tune of Rs.218 lacs, but this transaction relates to 14 different scrips shown under the investment and was made in 24 instances. Considering all these details and particularly the finding of fact rendered in favour of the Assessee in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order under challenge, in our view, the impugned order does not raise any substantial question of law much less those projected and argued before us. We do not find that the order of the Tribunal can be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. The concurrent findings of fact, therefore, being so not vitiated, the Appeal cannot be entertained. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)