Silvar Oak, C-4, Sawai Jaisingh High-Way, Jaipur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ncrb, Statute Circle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No.83/2008. M/s Kalindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Limited, Silvar Oak, C-4, Sawai Jaisingh High-way, Jaipur: through its Director Shri S.P. Sharma S/o Shri G.L. Sharma aged 56 years approx. by cast Hindu. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, NCRB, Statute Circle, Jaipur. 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. Range-I, NCRB, Statute Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents_____________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Naresh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 24/01/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order ofthe CIT(A). 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 05.09.2008has framed the following substantial questions of law forconsideration: “(1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law thefinding of the ld. ITAT in sustaining theorder of the ld. CIT(A) is not vitiated, dueto based it on conjectures or surmises andon total misconception of law suffering fromnon-consideration,misreadingandmisconstruing of the relevant and cogentfacts, evidence and material apparent andpatent on record, as such perversity offinding is manifest on record? (2) Whether on found the appellant entitledto a particular relief, the ld. CIT(A) inexercising of the posers specifically grantedto it u/s. 251(1)(a) of the Act can reducethe assessment below the returned incomein granting such relief to its fullest extentmore so in the facts and circumstanceswhere section 237 of the Act entitles theappellant for the refund of the amount oftax paid by him in excess to the amountwith which the appellant is properlychargeable to tax under the Act and alsowhere section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872imposes a liability to refund the amountpaid mistakenly?” 3.An endeavour has been made by Mr. Gupta, learnedcounsel for the appellant that the question no.2 ought to havebeen considered but the same has been dismissed at the time ofadmission vide order dated 05.09.2008. 4.We are in complete agreement with the finding arrivedat by the Tribunal and no case for interference in the order of theTribunal is made out. 5.Accordingly the issues are answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 6.The appeal stands dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. bblm/10