The Commissioner Of Income Tax-13 v. M/S.kanji Moorarji

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1671 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-13Vs.M/s.Kanji Moorarji. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr.P.C.Chhotaray, for Appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani, for Respondent. ........... PC: CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATE :- 26[th] March, 2014--- 1.When this appeal was called out, Mr.Jasani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee placed before us the orders passed in the case of very assessee - Kanji Moorarji and delivered in Income Tax appeal no.232 of 2011 on 5.3.2014 and in Income Tax Appeal no.1368 of 2011 on 7.3.2014. It is submitted by him that these are the Revenue's appeal that have been dismissed by this Court firstly by recording concession in the later order and secondly by holding that the request of the assessee to allow the expenses as miscellaneous expenses has been accepted. 2.Even with regard to sustenance of disallowance of interest, what we find is that the arguments of the Revenue's Counsel cannot be accepted. The Revenue's Counsel has tendered one question of law and stated to be an additional substantial question of law. He submits that if page 15 of the paper book is perused that would reveal that consistently this Assessee had adopted modus of showing huge loss and this could be by jugglery of accounts or some inventive method which he invented to avoid the liability to pay tax. 3.We are unable to accept this contention because in the assessment year in question i.e. 2005-06 the Tribunal has merely accepted its earlier findings and in the case of very Assessee. In paragraph 4, the Tribunal has found that in the case of present Assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 an order was passed on 25.2.2009 and for assessment year 2004-05 and order was passed on 10.11.2009. For the current academic year, the same issues have been raised and the findings of fact in relation to the earlier assessment years as recorded by the Tribunal have been accepted by the Revenue. In such circumstances, when the Tribunal relied on its earlier findings of fact, in relation to same Assessee but for the prior assessment year, then, in the facts and circumstances of the present case no substantial question of law is raised in this appeal. Even additional question of law cannot be entertained and to be fair to the Revenue's Counsel simply because an attempt made is to take this Court through the accounts maintained and the system adopted by the Assessee. It is submitted that the accounts do not give true picture of the Assessee's business and therefore, necessitate thorough examination of affairs and in respect of accepting his claims year after year. This attempt is nothing but reopening of factual finding and which is not permissible in our limited jurisdiction unless such findings are demonstrated to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of the record. We do not find that any such conclusion can be reached on the basis of the Tribunal's findings. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)