Itxa/3402/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -13, Mumbai v. Shri. Mukesh Gopaldas Dattani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAXAPPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2928 OF 2007 INCOME TAX The Commissioner of Income Tax. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Mukesh Gopaldas Dattani. ... Respondent. A.S.Shivsharan for the appellant. Vipul B. Joshi with T.M.Nadar for the respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 6th October 2008. DATED : 6th October 2008. P.C. : P.C. :---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The above appeal seeks to raise the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of trading in cloves, cassia, staranised and chick pens? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of Rs.6,06,330/- made on account of unproved consignees and allowing the expenses of Rs.4,15,847/- on the said consignments? 3. We have perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7th May, 2007; wherein the Tribunal in paragraph0- 5 has observed as under: "5. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, however, we see no need to interfere in the relief granted by the assessee. In our considered view, once the assessee himself makes a declaration of the suppressed income to the tune of Rs.16,00,000 in the relevant year and that amount is already included in the taxable profits of the assesee, there cannot be any further scope of making estimated gross profit addition for the suppressed gross profit. In any event, there is no cogent material on record to justify or substantiate the gross profit addition in question. Merely because gross profit in a particular year is low cannot be reason enough to warrant or justify any such addition for the simple reason that business situations can never be so static as to permit or require a uniform gross profit rate from year to year. Keeping all these factors in mind, as also entirely of the case, we approve and confirm the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter." 4. From the above, it is explicitly clear that there is no merit in the above appeal. It is nothing but reiteration of the finding of fact. There is no substantial question of law involved. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)