The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Thane.… v. Shri Vijay C. Chaturvedi

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane.… Appellant v/s Shri Vijay C. Chaturvedi … Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.P.R. Toprani for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2014 P. C. : 1Heard Mr.Kumar on behalf of the appellant. 2The only submission made by Mr.Kumar is that the Tribunal ought to have remitted or remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer if it found that its earlier direction was not complied with. It is the submission of Mr.Kumar that this alone raises the substantial question of law for determination and consideration of this Court in the present appeal. 3We are unable to agree. The Tribunal initially remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to find out as to whether the assessee before the Tribunal had on both occasions, namely, earlier and now has discharged the burden placed by him on diary. It was for the assessee to explain that the diary which was found does not belong to him. The respondent assessee addressed a letter to the Assessing Officer pointing out as to how that diary in relation thereto does not belong to him but it belongs to Chaturvedi. The assessee forwarded complete details, namely, telephone numbers and address of said Chaturvedi. In the circumstances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that no useful purpose will be served by again remanding the case. The Tribunal has issued specific direction that the Assessing Officer must trace the entire transaction on the explanation given by the assessee. If the explanation given by the assessee was on record, then the Assessing Officer was duty bound to proceed in accordance with law. Once the initial burden on the respondent assessee has been discharged by him, then the Assessing Officer could not have pursued the case as if it is the respondent assessee who owes every single explanation in relation to the subject transaction. For all these reasons, we find that the Tribunal committed no error in refusing the request of the Revenue in this case. It found that the Revenue had sufficient opportunities and yet the Assessing officer did not comply with its direction. The order passed by the Tribunal and impugned before us assigns cogent and satisfactory reasons in paragraphs 8 and 8.1 of the order under challenge. They do not suffer from any serious infirmity or perversity giving rise to the substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)