The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S.parvesh Construction Ltd

bsb : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2663 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7v/sM/s.Parvesh Construction Ltd. … Appellant … Respondent Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal for the appellant. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 7TH MAY, 2014 P. C. : 1This appeal challenges the order passed on 25[th] May, 2011 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2The assessment order in question is 2003-2004. 3Mr.Chanderpal in support of this appeal submits that the same raises substantial questions of law and which are formulated at page Nos. 6 and 7 of the appeal paper-book. 4Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal and perusing the questions stated to be substantial questions of law, we are of the opinion that, in our limited jurisdiction we cannot re-appreciate or re-appraise a finding of fact. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whose order has been upheld by the Tribunal, has undertaken a detailed scrutiny. He has recorded the statements of the concerned persons and found from the statement of J.K.Chaturvedi, Baroda that the sale of the shares did take place. Had it not been so, the revenue would not have urged before the Tribunal the other question or issue. The Tribunal has noted in the order under challenge and particularly in paragraph 9 the contentions of the revenue. The Tribunal has found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was fully justified in holding that there was a transfer/sale of shares and that the date of purchase and date of sale of shares are 30[th] June, 2001 and 29[th] August, 2002. It is in these circumstances that he was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the gain arising out of the sale of these shares as “long term capital gains”. In such circumstances, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)