The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. Om Anand Exports

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2085 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 … Appellant v/s Om Anand Exports … Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2014 P. C. : 1We have heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revenue in support of this appeal and Mr.Jasani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2For the reasons that are set out in paragraph 12 of the memo of appeal and finding that the assessee has no objection, that we take up this appeal though it relates to a matter from the State of Gujrat. 3After hearing Mr.Suresh Kumar on the questions at page 6 of the paper book, we are of the opinion that the appeal is entirely frivolous and does not raise any substantial question of law. 4The Tribunal has found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has adopted correct approach. The assessee is in the business of purchase of rough diamond from abroad and partly from local market. It processes the same as a finished diamond and selling it abroad as an exporter. The Assessing Officer has gone by the closing stock of rough diamond, whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition and the Tribunal find that such an approach of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity. The reasons assigned in paragraphs 11 and 20 of the Tribunal's order are thus in consonance with the factual position and the material produced. Even with regard to question No.2, the factual data on which this order has been made does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity. We are of the view that such concurrent orders in relation to this, so also the other claims, do not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)