Itxa/1457/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7 Mumbai v. S. Kumars Online Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1457 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. S. Kumars Online Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Dr. K. Shivram with Ajay R. Singh for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Three questions of law are sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal:- (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances if the case and in law the ITAT is justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.12,41,75,860/- made on account of outstanding balances of franchises as well as strategic business associates (SBA) without appreciating the fact that A.O. has clearly brought on record that self deposits are not payable to the franchises and SBAs ?''law the ITAT is justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.12,41,75,860/- made on account of outstanding balances of franchises as well as strategic business associates (SBA) without appreciating the fact that A.O. has clearly brought on record that self deposits are not payable to the franchises and SBAs ?'' (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) law, the ITAT is justified in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) that since the addition has already been made on this account for AY 2002-2003, further addition of the same amount in AY 2003- 2004 amounts to doubt addition, without appreciating the correct facts of the case that these has been addition to the extent of Rs.7,91,31,663/- in these accounts during the year ? (c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in not treating the amount of Rs.12,41,75,860/- being the amount of franchises as well as strategic business associates (SBA) as trading / revenue receipt ? 2.As regards question (b) is concerned, the counsel for the revenue fairly states that the said question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Hence question (b) cannot been entertained. 3.As regards questions (a) & (c) are concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised by the revenue in respect of the same assessee in Income Tax Appeal No.5726 of 2010 for another assessment year has been rejected by this Court today i.e. 14/6/2011. Hence questions (a) & (c) cannot be entertained. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)