The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.bombay Mercantile Co-Op.bank Ltd

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION The Commissioner of Income Tax-1....Appellant vs. M/s.Bombay Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. ...Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.223 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1....Appellant vs. M/s.Bombay Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. ...Respondent AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.254 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1....Appellant vs. M/s.Bombay Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. ...Respondent AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.261 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1....Appellant vs. M/s.Bombay Mercantile Co-op.Bank Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.Vimal Gupta, for Appellants.Mr.B.G.Jhaveri, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: 18TH July, 2008. P.C.:- 1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for boththe sides. Perused the order. The tribunal's order iswell reasoned order. The Tribunal has held thatmerely relying on certain observations in theJankiraman Committee's report, a finding cannot berecorded that the ready forward transactions in theGovernment securities those which are entered into bythe bank were not regular transactions of therespondent-bank. Except observations in theJankiraman Committee Report, admittedly no otherevidence is on record to indicate that thetransactions were not entered into by the bank inregular course of business. In our opinion, reallyspeaking, it is the case of lack of evidence to show that there is ulterior motive or fraud in enteringinto the transaction. In the absence of anyevidence, the tribunal has rightly concluded thatthere is a possibility of bank having enteredinto ready forward transactions in the Governmentsecurities as regular banking transactions speciallybecause at the relevant time there was no ban onentering into a ready forward transaction inGovernment securities. Taking overall view of thematter therefore, in our opinion, no question of lawarises. Hence, the appeal is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) --- (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)