The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sadia Sheikh

Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOAMISC CIVIIL APPLICATION NO. 214 OF 2017IN TAX APPEAL NO.35 OF 2014 WITH MISC CIVIIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2017IN TAX APPEAL NO.37 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sadia Sheikh … Applicant …Respondent Ms Amira Razaq, Junior Government Standing Counsel for the applicantMr N Pai, for the respondent PC:- CORAM:G.S. PATEL & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJDATED:25th September 2017 1.A clarification is sought by the revenue of an order dated 2ndDecember 2015 that disposed of Tax Appeals Nos. 35 and 37 of2014. The clarification is, specifically, in respect of paragraph 4 ofthat order, which reads thus : “4.During the course of the hearing of the aboveappeals, the learned counsels have pointed out that inrespect of the same transaction this Court has disposed ofTax Appeal Nos. 15 and 16 of 2014 dismissing the appeals preferred by the Appellant/revenue and that the pointinvolved in the present appeals is similar to the point whicharose in such appeals. On perusal of the order passed bythe learned Appellate Tribunal, we find that the learnedTribunal upon appreciating the evidence on record hascome to the conclusion that the Respondents were notsellers in the subject sale deed and that the seller was M/s.Landscape Developers who were the vendors in theregistered document. Apart from that, the learned Tribunalalso noted that the genuineness of the transactionbetween the Respondent-assessee and the developers isnot disputed by the Appellant/revenue. Besides, thelearned Tribunal also noted that the consideration wasreceived by the said developers and did not come in thehands of the Respondent-assessee herein. The learnedTribunal also noted that even assuming any cashtransaction, such amount cannot be taxed in the hands ofthe Respondent-assessee as there was no material onrecord to establish that he has received such amount. It isalso not disputed that the subject transaction in thepresent appeals were also the transactions which are thesubject matter of Tax Appeal Nos. 32 and 33 of 2014 whichhave also been disposed of by the order passed today. Wefind that the learned counsel appearing for the Appellanthas failed to show any perversity in the findings arrived atby the learned Tribunal. This Court in the present appealscannot reappreciate the evidence on record. As such, thereare no substantial questions of law arise in the presentappeals as proposed by the Appellant for consideration.Hence, the appeals stand rejected.” 2.There might have been some substance to this had it beenshown, or had it been persuaded that the whole that order dependson this sole paragraph. Instead, we find that even if this paragraph of that order is not taken into account, the reaming part of the order isunaffected. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate how in the nameof a “clarification” we could actually embark on what is to all intentsand purposes a review when there is no facially apparent error madeout, nor any other ground permissible in a review shown. 3.The application is, therefore, dismissed. There will be noorder as to costs. 4.Consequently Misc Civil Application No.206/2017 is alsodismissed. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J G. S. PATEL, J