Itxa/907/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17,Mum v. M/S K.p. Gupta And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 907 OF 2008 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 907 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax- 17, Mumbai. ..Appellant. V/s. M/s K. P. Gupta & Ors ..Respondents. Mr D. K. Kamwal, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr A. K. Jasani, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 08th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED: 08th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.:---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is seeking determination of the following two questions of law in this appeal. a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in confirming the order of the Learned CIT Appeal who had treated the Assessee’s income of Rs.42,44,906/- as "Agricultural Income" instead of treating the said income as income from undisclosed sources as held by the Assessing Officer? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who had erred in admitting additional evidence in contravention of the provisions of Section 46A of the I.T.Act? 3. The learned counsel for the parties pointed out that question (b) does not arise for the assessment year 1998-99. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-2001 the Assessing Officer in the assessment year has clearly recorded a finding that the appellant has earned substantial amount by way of agricultural income and the appellant was cultivating agricultural land. It is also an admitted position that both the aforesaid assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-2001 were challenged by the revenue and the challenges have failed. Thus, there is no substantial question of law involved warranting admission of this appeal. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limini. (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)(DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)