The Commissioner Of Income Tax -15, Mumbai v. Manisha S. Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax -15, Mumbai Vs. Manisha S. Jain ...Appellant ...Respondent ----- Mr.Vimal Gupta i/b Pankaj Kapoor for Appellant CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M. KANADE J.DATED JULY 3, 2008 P.C. 1. The present Appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17[th] October, 2003, while calculating the year ofassessment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal hadpassed following order: “We have the both sides and perused record available with us. We have also gone through the paper book filed by the assessee containing pages 1 to 37. We have also perused the pages indicated by the learned AR of the / 2 / assessee i.e. Pages nos. 11 to 27 and found that thesame income has been taxed twice in two different assessee's which is not permissible under the law as stated by the learned AR of the assessee. M/s. Plastika Enteriprsed inits block return for the even period has shown Rs.83,651/- being profit component of the said addition as informed by the learned AR of the Assessee at the time of hearing. There we are of the considered opinion that having regard to the totality of the facts addition in dispute has been wrongly made in the hands of the assessee and the sameis accordingly deleted.” 2.While passing the impugned order, it is contended that thefindings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the order. At the outset, we may notice that the same income hasbeen taxed twice in two different assessee's, which is notpermissible under the law. The Learned Counsel appearing onbehalf of the State stated that there no incriminating material and theappreciation of evidence is not a question of law as contemplatedunder the Act. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. Hence,appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE J.