Mait/65/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Som Distilleries Pvt.ltd

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMAIT-65-2005 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVs M/S SOM DISTILLERIES PVT.LTD.) [18][-][11][-][2019]Jabalpur, Dated : Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. The challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is to the orderpassed by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 112 & 123/Ind/2004 dated18.03.2005 relating to the block period 26.03.1993 to 10.01.2001. The appealwas admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of lawvide order dated 12.08.2005. "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in directingthe A.O. to apply the net profit rate of each year asappearing in the books of the assessee on theundisclosed turn-over? case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directingthe A.O. to apply the net profit rate of each year asappearing in the books of the assessee on theundisclosed turn-over? 2 . Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal was justified in law in directingthe A.O. to work-out the unaccountedproduction/sales on the basis of the sale price of thethree products on the ratio of disclosed sales ofthose products in each year of the block periodinstead of applying the entire unaccountedpurchases of molasses as having been consumedtowards production of IMFL?case the Tribunal was justified in law in directingthe A.O. to work-out the unaccountedproduction/sales on the basis of the sale price of thethree products on the ratio of disclosed sales ofthose products in each year of the block periodinstead of applying the entire unaccountedpurchases of molasses as having been consumedtowards production of IMFL? 3 . Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in remandingthe matter to the A.O. to adjudicate the issue ofunaccounted pruchase of molasses by the assesseein the name of benamidar/bogus concerns? 4 . Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in remainingthe matter to the A.O. to adjudicate the issue ofunaccounted purchase of molasses by the assesseein its own name? 5 . Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in settingaside the finding about the assessee's collusion and 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat the entire undisclosed income, belonged to theassessee company and therefore, no action wasrequired in the hands of its sister concern? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in remandingthe matter back to the file of the A.O. to restrict thelevy of interest U/s 158 BFA (1)? (8) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in remandingthe matter to the A.O. to verify whether the bankaccounts were disclosed in the books of account andholding that no addition could be made on accountof unexplained deposits in disclosed bank accounts? (9) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustainingthe deletion by CIT (Appeals) of addition of Rs. OneCrore made by the A.O. on account of unexplainedinvestment in purchase of molasses? (10) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat no surcharge was leviable in respect of searchconducted during financial year 2000-01 even whenthe levy of surcharge has been provided by part I ofthe first schedule to the Finance Act, 2000(10 of2000) (first proviso to Section 2(3) of the Act 10 of2000)"case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat no surcharge was leviable in respect of searchconducted during financial year 2000-01 even whenthe levy of surcharge has been provided by part I ofthe first schedule to the Finance Act, 2000(10 of2000) (first proviso to Section 2(3) of the Act 10 of2000)" (10) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat no surcharge was leviable in respect of searchconducted during financial year 2000-01 even whenthe levy of surcharge has been provided by part I ofthe first schedule to the Finance Act, 2000(10 of2000) (first proviso to Section 2(3) of the Act 10 of2000)"case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat no surcharge was leviable in respect of searchconducted during financial year 2000-01 even whenthe levy of surcharge has been provided by part I ofthe first schedule to the Finance Act, 2000(10 of2000) (first proviso to Section 2(3) of the Act 10 of2000)" Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue hadapproached this Court under Section 260-A of the Act against remand orderpassed by the Tribunal. It was pleaded that in pursuance thereto remandmade by the Tribunal, fresh assessment order had been passed by theAssessing Officer which was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). The Revenue had challenged the adverse order passed by theCIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal which was dismissed. Now an appealagainst the order of the Tribunal has been preferred by the Revenue underSection 260-A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid submissions present appeal has become rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the same. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)CHIEF JUSTICE (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE Amitabh