Itxa/433/2016 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central ) 4 v. M/S Aquatic Remedies Pvt Ltd

Rane Monday, 30.7.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4 V/s.M/s. Acquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant ….Respondent * * * * Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. F.V. Irani a/w. Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, &SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE : 30TH JULY, 2018. P.C. :- 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the common impugnedorder dated 17[th] April, 2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugnedorder dated 17[th] April, 2015 is in respect of AssessmentYears 2005-06 to 2011-12. This Appeal relates toAssessment Year 2010-11. 2The Revenue has urged the following re-framedquestion of law, for our consideration: (A). Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunalis justified in deleting the addition made underSection 68 of the Act, without appreciating thefact that the assessee had failed to discharge itsonus in terms of Section 68 of the Act by notfurnishing evidence to substantiate the identity,genuinenessofthetransactionandcreditworthiness of the shareholder/investor ? (B) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunalhas erred in deleting the addition of 5% of cashpurchases as profit by way of discount, withoutappreciating the fact that the assessee had failedto furnish supporting evidence to prove theidentity of the party and genuineness of suchpurchases ? (C) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunalhas erred in deleting the addition of 2% asunexplainedexpensesbywayofcommission/service charges paid for arrangingaccommodation bills ? (D) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'bleTribunal is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.43,46,518/- on account of peak cash credit ?" 3. Regarding Questions (A) to (C) : (i). It is an agreed position between the parties thatQuestions No.(A) to (C) raised in this Appeal, standsconcluded by the order passed by us today in Income TaxAppeal No. 83 of 2016 and other connected Appealsconcerning Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10 arisingfrom the common impugned order dated 17[th] April, 2015 ofthe Tribunal. Therefore, for the reasons indicated therein,(order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No. 83 of 2010),Questions No.(A), (B) and (C) raised herein would not giverise to any substantial questions of law as it standsconcluded by our passed today in Income Tax Appeal No. 83of 2010. (ii). Thus, these questions as proposed do not give rise toany substantial questions of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question (D) : (i). the impugned order of the Tribunal has held that inthe absence of any addition on account of bogus purchases Rane 4/4ITXA-433-2016 (SR.7)Monday, 30.7.2018 and/or accommodation bills being sustained, the question ofmaking addition on account of peak credit would not arise. (ii) Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for theRevenue, very fairly states that, this Question would notarise if the Revenue's contention in respect of boguspurchases/accommodation bills, is not accepted. In view ofthe above, this Question as proposed would not give rise toany substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J) NeetaDigitally signedby NeetaShaileshShailesh SawantDate: 2018.08.02Sawant15:42:22 +0530