Prin. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Siyaram Metals P. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 183 of 2019 =============================================PRIN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusSIYARAM METALS P. LTD. ============================================= Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 25/06/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 26.09.2018 in ITA No.1062/RJT/2010 for the Assessment Year 2002-03. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following as the substantial question of law : “Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal of the revenue particularly when the set-aside matter is pending with the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication and findings of the Central Excise department regarding under invoicing is not negated or quashed till dated by any higher appellate authority?” 3.The Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue held as under : “14. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that ld. AO has made reference to large number of information transmitted to him by the Customs & Excise authorities. Basically, it was a show cause notice issued by the Central Excise authority containing various information. In the case of avoidance of excise this show cause has not attained finality. The Tribunal has set aside the proceedings and remitted back to the file of authorities. According to the information given to us by the ld. counsel for the assessee at Bar that no further steps have been taken. It is also pertinent to observe that CESTAT has remitted the issue on 12.08.2009 i.e., more than nine years have expired. We have confronted the ld. DR whether any steps have been taken during this period of nine years by the AO for collecting any other conclusive material. The DR was unable to supply any other information. Therefore, we are of the view that a roving inquiry cannot be allowed in the affairs of the assessee endlessly. It was for the Revenue to bring concrete material on the record on which any liability can be fastened upon the assessee. The Revenue failed to bring any evidence. We could appreciate the request of the ld. CIT-DR for remitting the file to the AO if after the order of the ld CIT(A) in the year 2010 the Revenue was able to lay its hand on any material which could be produced before the Tribunal by way of additional evidence. It appears that proceedings remained dormant even after the order of the ld. CIT(A) when additions have been deleted. No efforts have been made to collect any further information for justifying the challenge to the order of the ld. CIT(A). In such situation, we cannot remit the issue to the file of the AO for re-investigation. We do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. They are rejected.” 4.Having heard Ms. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and having considered the proposed question of law and also having gone through the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The question proposed cannot be termed as a question of law much less a substantial question of law in view that no error could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Tax Appeal. 4.Having heard Ms. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and having considered the proposed question of law and also having gone through the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The question proposed cannot be termed as a question of law much less a substantial question of law in view that no error could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Tax Appeal. 5.In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly