Itxa/269/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Satish Ashok Sabnis

*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.269 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-III,Pune. ..Appellant -Versus-Satish Ashok Sabnis ..Respondent ...................... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 11[th] June, 2014 P.C.: 1]Heard Mr. Pinto appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this appeal. The Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 29[th] July, 2011 which affirms the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2]Mr. Pinto submits that the claim of the assessee has been accepted although there was no material to indicate that firstly the assessee's father and his wife were sub-brokers and secondly assuming they were so yet, there was no material produced in the form of list of clients with whom they have dealt with as sub-brokers and from whom they could have claimed any commission. In these circumstances, a highly doubtful and 1/2 suspicious claim has been allowed and this situation raises a substantial question of law. 3]We are unable to agree. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have found that wife of the respondent-assessee was a broker of Pune Stock Exchange. The husband and wife are experienced brokers, they are also duly registered for a sub-brokerage activity. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has found from the record and after perusal of the remand report that the list of clients has been furnished and which has not been rebutted. None of the clients from the list had given any incriminating statement particularly that they were not introduced by the father of the assessee or wife of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, that the sub-brokers were held to be capable of having own clientèle. This clientèle was then dealt with by the respondent-assessee and that is how he paid a percentage of the income to both his wife and his father. It is in these circumstances, the findings of fact particularly in para-9 of the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity. The appeal does not raise any substantial of law. It is dismissed. (B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)