Itxa/5182/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 25 Mumbai v. Satish A. Shah Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant. M/s.Satish A. Shah (HUF). ... Respondent. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. P.C. : Office objections are overruled. Office to register the appeal. Appeal is taken up for hearing at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. 2.Perused appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant- revenue. 3.This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal relying upon its decision in the case of Mini Exports and/or Kartik Exports owned by Kamal Kumar Johri and Hari Om Sharma and/or Galaxy Exports held that so long as the VDIS Certificate issued under the VDIS, 1997 is holding the field, it is not open for any of the authorities created under the Act, to go behind the certificate and canvass a contention contrary to the certificate issued under the VDIS. We had an occasion to consider similar question in Income Tax Appeal No.634 of 2009 (CIT V/s. Uttamchand Jain) decided on 2[nd] July, 2009, wherein we have concurred with the said view of the tribunal. 4.So far as the factual aspect is concerned, the tribunal has recorded finding that the transaction of sale of jewellery declared under VDIS 1997 is a genuine sale transaction and that no efforts were made by the revenue authorities to show that the sale transactions were not genuine. The appeals filed by the revenue against the decisions of the Tribunal deleting the additions in the case of Kamal Kumar Johri and / or Hari Om Sharma and/or Galaxy Exports have already been dismissed by this Court for want or removal of office objections and/or in default long back and no steps have been taken to restore the said appeals. As a result, the decisions of the Tribunal in these cases have attained finality. In any event, the decision of the Tribunal in the cases before us that the sale transactions are genuine transactions is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. This being a finding of fact, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 5.For the reasons recorded above as well as the reasons recorded in the case of Uttamchand Jain (Supra), appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.