The Commissioner Of Income-Tax)Mumbai City – Ix Mumbai v. M/S Pix Auto Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1115 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-Tax)Mumbai City – IX Mumbai).. Appellant Versus M/s Pix Auto Ltd. ).. Respondents None present for the Appellant.Mr. M. Subramanian a/w Mr. V.S. Hadade for the Respondents. CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & V. M. KANADE, J.DATE:4TH JULY 2008. P.C. Nobody is present on behalf of the Appellant. 2.The Appellant is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10[th] May 2004. Vide theimpugned order, the Tribunal held that the purchase of machinery madeby the asseseee from M/s. Pix Transmission Ltd. Keeping in view thelease agreement and acceptance of transaction, a sum of Rs.2.55 lakhswas to be paid in installments. Affirming the findings recorded by the CIT Appeals, the Tribunal further noticed that findings were findings offacts and were drawn on the basis of the Assessing Officer's demandreport which report was found to be justified and in accordance withlaw. Even the revenue impact may be inconsequential in terms of theorder of the Tribunal. On these premises, the following question of lawis suggested in the Appeal :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right inallowing the claim of depreciation as claimed by theassessee wherein the Assessing Officer had held thatthe transaction of purchase/sale and lease back ofthe machinery/moulds were sham transaction ? 3.We are of the considered view that this above question is nota question of law much less a substantial question of law. This relatesto mere appreciation of evidence. Two concurrent findings have beenrecorded by the authorities below. We see no reason in the Appeal.Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE -3- V. M. KANADE, J.