Itxa/1730/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii v. Dhanraj Mills P Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDITION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1730 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II...AppellantV/s.Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd. ...Respondent ..... Ms.Ashok Kotangle with Mrs.Padma Divakar, Advocate for theAppellant. Mr.Mandar Vaidya, Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM :S.V.GANGAPURWALA &A.M.BADAR JJ. 12[th] July 2017. DATED : P.C. 1The Appeal pertains to Assessment year 1991-92. TheRevenue assails the Order of the Tribunal. Mr.Kotangle, thelearned counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that theTribunal was not justified in confirming Appeal of the CIT Appealsand thus deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Act.According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer hadcorrectly appreciated facts on record. The amount of loan ofMr.A.D.Narottamdas was properly added under Section 68 of theAct. 2The learned counsel for the respondent supports theorder. 3Upon perusing the Judgment of the Tribunal, it ismanifest that in the first round the Tribunal had given directionswhich had become final. While remitting the matter, it wasdirected that the Assessee has to show in the proceeding that theamount under reference is reflected in loan account ofShri.A.D.Narottamdas and thereafter no addition would be calledfor. It would be clear that the said amount is reflected in loanaccount of Shri.A.D.Narottamdas. The Commissioner (Appeals)have arrived at conclusion. In light of that Tribunal has alsoobserved that the Revenue could not show any infirmity and thesaid finding of fact is not disputed. 4In light of the above, the Judgment of the Tribunalcannot be faulted with. The appeal does not involve anysubstantial question of law. 5As such, Appeal is dismissed. 6No costs. ( A.M.BADAR J.) ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA J.)