The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Prakash S. Pingale (Huf)…

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II … Appellant v/s Prakash S. Pingale (HUF)… Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta, senior counsel i/by Suresh Kumar for the appellant. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2014 P. C. : 1Having heard Mr.Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue and on perusing with his assistance the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that from the exercise undertaken and completed by these authorities, essentially on facts, no substantial question of law arise for determination and consideration in this appeal. The authorities have found that the legal provisions have been correctly invoked and applied bearing in mind the fact that the plots which are adjacent, yet they had their peculiarities. In these matters, merely because a adjacent plot has been valued at a lower rate, necessarily does not mean that the act is deliberate or contrary to the interest of the revenue. In evaluating all factors including location, pending litigations, size, damages and frontage. A different opinion or view is always possible. Therefore, the valuation and the reports in that regard may differ but such issues do not raise any substantial question of law. In such circumstances, both issues have been dealt with in the factual back ground and circumstances emerging from the transactions undertaken by the assessee. Both issues do not give rise to the substantial question of law. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is accordingly dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)