The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central-Ii) Mumbai v. Shri Sudhir S. Mehta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-II) Mumbai..Appellant.Versus Shri Sudhir S. Mehta..Respondent. Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. 2.Two questions are raised in this appeal. So far as first question, relating to benami concerns, it is dealt with by the tribunal in the following words. “10.------- Nothing has been brought on record either by the AO or by the four persons, who filed their affidavits that the property or office belong to these 20 companies were belong to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, nothing has been brought on record to establish that the assessee is benami owner of these 20 companies. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the AO in this regard and hold that no income of these 20 companies can be considered in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the entire additions made on the basis of 20 companies are deleted.” 3.No fault can be found with the view taken by the tribunal based on appreciation of evidence. 4.So far as second question is concerned, the tribunal has recorded a finding of fact, which reads as under : “12.------The Ld. Special standing counsel of the department has fairly accepted during the course of hearing that if income already disclosed and assessed then no such income can be treated as undisclosed income while completing assessment u/s 158 BD r.w.s. 158 BC. As stated above, income under the respective heads mentioned have already been taxed, therefore, in our considered view, no addition can be made treating them as undisclosed income of the block period. Accordingly, the entire additions made under the head mentioned above are also deleted.” 4.In the above view of the matter, the view taken by the tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)