The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iii, Thane v. Shri Gidumal B. Ratnani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.143 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Thane..Appellant. Versus Shri Gidumal B. Ratnani..Respondent. Mr.Bhatnagar i/by N.R. Prajapati for the appellant in all the appeals.None for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.398 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Thane..Appellant. VersusShri Bhadresh D. Doshi ..Respondent. Mr.Prakash Shah with Mr.Jas Sanghvi i/by PDS Legal for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.571 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Thane..Appellant.VersusSmt.Kavita S. Galani..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.574 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Thane..Appellant.VersusSmt.Meena Tulsidar Rupela, Ulhasnagar – 3..Respondent. Mr.Satendra Pandey i/by Mr.K. Gopal for the repsondent in 571 & 574. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Thane..Appellant. Versus Shri Anil S. Moryani, Ulhasnagar..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.591 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Thane..Appellant. Versus Shobha Moryani, Ulhasnagar..Respondent. Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent in Appeal No.575, 591 of 2009. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 31ST AUGUST 2009 P.C. : 1.All these appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law : a)Whether the ITAT, being last fact finding forum, can decide an appeal without going in to facts, where the Assessing Officer has made the additions under Section 68 and 69 after going through in detail various complexed facts, circumstances, depositions, bogus bills and evidences found during the survey operations under Section 133A merely relying on judgments, which are judgments in personas and facts of which are substantially different from the facts of Appeal in question ?appeal without going in to facts, where the Assessing Officer has made the additions under Section 68 and 69 after going through in detail various complexed facts, circumstances, depositions, bogus bills and evidences found during the survey operations under Section 133A merely relying on judgments, which are judgments in personas and facts of which are substantially different from the facts of Appeal in question ? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) which has put burden on Department to prove genuineness of transaction, which is against the Income Tax Act, 1961 and against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Dihatti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (1977) 2 SCC 378 ?Hon’ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) which has put burden on Department to prove genuineness of transaction, which is against the Income Tax Act, 1961 and against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Dihatti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (1977) 2 SCC 378 ? 2.Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the aforesaid questions are answered by this Court against the revenue in Income Tax Appeal No.634 of 2009 (CIT V/s. Uttamchand Jain) decided on 2-7-2009. 3.In this view of the matter, all these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)