The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai v. Shri Tejinder Singh Makkar, Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2354 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Shri Tejinder Singh Makkar, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant.Mr.J.D. Mistry with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 9[th] March, 2010. P.C. : 1.Two questions have been formulated by the Revenue in the appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 1990-1991. They are as follows : a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the additions made by Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in 480 MT CRCA Sheets and profit thereon ?the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the additions made by Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in 480 MT CRCA Sheets and profit thereon ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of CIT (A), deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of CIT (A), deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the bad debts without appreciating that the assessee was doing only cash transaction and there were no credit sales and no books of accounts were maintained by the assessee at the time of the search ? 2.The answers to both the questions have essentially turned on an evaluation of evidence and fact. In so far as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal has observed in Para 6.1 of its order that the assessee had offered an amount of Rs.92.5 lakhs as his income for the relevant previous period following the search, which took place on 21[st] February 1990. The question, as to whether the import of 480 MT of CRCA Sheets formed a part of the aforesaid amount or otherwise is a pure question of fact upon which the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Similarly, on the second question, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal observed that the case of the assessee pertaining to the write-off of a bad debt could not be rejected since no inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the debtor on the transactions alleged were bogus. These are pure findings of fact concurrently rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and by the Tribunal. No substantial questions of law arises under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)