Itxa/223/2012 Of Shri Kishore M. Nagrecha v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 12 (2)

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.223 OF 2012 Kishore M. Nagrecha-Versus-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-12(2) ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Subhash Shetty i/b. Atul K. Jasani for the Appellant.Mr. P. C. Chhotaray for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 11[th] June, 2014 P.C.: 1]This appeal challenges the order passed on 16[th] September, 2011 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The assessment year in question is 2006-07. 2]Mr. Shetty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee would submit that the appeal raises a substantial question of law. The concurrent finding of fact is perverse because the assessee had lodged the claim for the goods lost in transit. The Insurance Company rejected the claim. The matter is pending in the forum/Tribunal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ultimately, the customers have not received the goods, and therefore, they are seeking to recover the loss caused by such non-receipt. The matter will have to be settled or contested by the assessee. In such circumstances, the finding that there is no real loss to the assessee is totally perverse. Hence, the appeal deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant-assessee in this appeal. 3]Upon perusal of the concurrent orders, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel. The finding of fact is that the appellant exported the goods against advanced payments. The full price of the goods was realised in advance from the customers by the assessee. It is in these circumstances, that the authorities found that the appellant-assessee did not suffer any real loss. That the goods were lost in transit, and therefore, the claim was lodged with the insurer but which claim was not honoured, has, thus, no relevance when the assessee has already recovered the price of the goods. In such circumstances, if there is no real loss in the assessment year in question, the findings of fact cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The appeal does not raises any substantial question of law. It is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa