Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate I/B. Shri v. St February, 2018

1 ita 99.16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2016 The Parbhani District CentralCo-operative Bank Ltd.,Through its Incharge Manager.. AppellantVersusThe Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax and another.. Respondents Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b. Shri V. R. Dhorde,Advocate for the Appellant.Shri Alok M Sharma, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. : 1 st February, 2018 DATE PER COURT: 1.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate for the appellantsubmits that the appellant had filed a revised return for theassessment year 2007-2008, claiming deduction under Section 36of The Income Tax Act, 1961 of the bad debts. The case of theappellant was turned down on the ground that the benefit ofrecompilation of income is not available to assessee. Accordingto the learned Senior Advocate, the appellant had already paid 2 ita 99.16 the tax, as such, could not have been taxed twice. This aspecthas not been considered. 2.Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondents supportsthe Judgment and states that the issue is squarely covered bythe Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd.(1992) 198 ITR 297. 3.The facts of this case are undisputed. The appellant hadfiled revised return for the assessment year 2007-2008. 4.It has been held by the Apex Court in a case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Sun EngineeringWorks (P.) Ltd.(Supra) that proceedings under Section 147 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be allowed to to be converted in“Revision or Review”. The notice is issued to the appellant underSection 148 also in the present case. 5.Even the assessee had conceded to this position before theTribunal. 3 ita 99.16 6.Considering that the dispute is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. Nosubstantial question of law arises. 7.The appeal is dismissed. No costs. [A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe/Jan.18