The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3Mumbai v. M/S Reliance Commercial Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2004 ALONG WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-3Mumbai ) ).. Appellant Versus M/s Reliance Commercial Corporation ).. Respondent None present for the Appellant.Mr J.K. Mistry a/w Mr Raj Darak for the Respondent. CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & V. M. KANADE, J.DATE:4TH JULY 2008. P.C. These Appeals were called out in the morning for hearing on admission. Nobody was present on behalf of the Appellant.Resultantly, they were kept back and have been recalled for hearing.Still nobody is present on behalf of the Appellant. 2.The Appeal is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10[th] May 2004. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the purchase of machinery madeby the asseseee from M/s. Pix Transmission Ltd. Keeping in view thelease agreement and acceptance of transaction, a sum of Rs.2.55 lakhswas to be paid in installments. Affirming the findings recorded by theCIT Appeals, the Tribunal further noticed that findings were findings offacts and were drawn on the basis of the Assessing Officer's demandreport which report was found to be justified and in accordance withlaw. Even the revenue impact may be inconsequential in terms of theorder of the Tribunal. On these premises, the following question of lawis suggested in the Appeal :- 3.Be that as it may, these Appeals are dismissed for default.While dismissing these Appeals for default for non-appearance, we may also notice that the question of law suggested in the present Appealshardly subsist for consideration inasmuch as the same stand answeredby the judgment of this Court in M/s J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd.,248 ITR723, which has even been referred by the Tribunal in the impugnedorder. For the reasons afore-stated, these Appeals are dismissed. Noorder as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE -3- V. M. KANADE, J.