Mait/66/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Som Distilleries & Brerweries P.ltd

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMAIT-66-2005 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVs M/S SOM DISTILLERIES & BRERWERIES P.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. 111 & 122/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 law vide order dated 12.08.2005. "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat the addition of Rs.13,49,36,904/- by the A.O. onthe basis of seized document described as Surveyreport, is unsustainable? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting theaddition of Rs.14,49,000/- based on the seized paperLPS-1 page 6?case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting theaddition of Rs.14,49,000/- based on the seized paperLPS-1 page 6? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in remandingthe matter to the A.O. to restrict the levy of interestunder Section 158 BFA (1) even when no specificimmunity from levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) has been granted to the assessee by thisCourt and delay in obtaining the relevantdocuments was clearly attributable to the assessee? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in remainingthe matter to the AO to verify whether the bankaccount were disclosed in the books of accounts andholding that no addition could be made on accountof unexplained deposits in disclosed bank accounts? 5. 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 when MAIT-66-2005 the 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 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 becomerendered infructuous.Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the same. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)CHIEF JUSTICEJUDGE Amitabh