Itxa/166/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Vii v. M.r. Bansali And Co Mahharkumar R. Bansali)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.166 OF 2001 The CIT-VII ..Appellant V/s. M/s.M.R.Bhansali & Co. ..Respondent ---- Mr.A.D.Kango with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Firoz Andhyorjina, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Rajani Divkar i/by Little & Co. for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 26.02.2008. PC 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. From the order of the Tribunal, we find that the declaration made on account of revaluation of stock for assessment year 1988-89 was accepted by the A.O. and deduction allowed under Section 88 HHC. The A.O. however, made certain additions against which the assessee preferred First Appeal. While dealing with the appeal, CIT allowed the claims made. However, while passing the order, decided the issue which was not raised by them. 3. Once the deduction was allowed and the revenue was not aggrieved as no appeal has been preferred to Commissioner (Appeals), it was not open to the : 2 : Commissioner (Appeals) to interfere with the order of the A.O. The Tribunal therefore, right in the view that has been taken. Even otherwise, we find from the order of the Tribunal that they have considered the matter on merits and consequently the amount is to be included as income for deduction under 80 HHC. 4. Considering the above finding, in our opinion, question as framed would not arise and consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)