The Commissioner Of Inconme Tax v. Bhushan G.mehta

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No.1438 of 2007 The Commissioner of Inconme Tax ..Appellant vs. Bhushan G.Mehta ..Respondent Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Mr.N.A.Kazi i/b Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla with Ms.Tripty Kapadia and Mr.Murlidhar i/b Joy Legal Consultants for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 10th September,2008 CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 10th September,2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By the above appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the following two substantial questions of law. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the decision of the CIT(A) that the receipt of Rs.1,30,00,000/- by the assessee cannot be considered as representing his undisclosed income within the definition of the -2- same as per provisions of section 158B(b) of the IT Act? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in not appreciating the applicability of provisions of section 158BB(1) of the I.T.Act 1961? 3. We have perused the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20th October, 2006. The Tribunal has considered in detail the reasons given by the CIT(A) while holding that there is no question of undisclosed income at all and wherein the CIT(A) has clearly observed that the receipt of Rs.1,30,00,000/- has been duly recorded in the appellant’s regular books of account as well as the same is reflected in the Bank account. In view thereof, it cannot be reasonably presumed that the appellant would not have disclosed its receipt of income for the relevant assessment year. It appears that the Tribunal has accepted the submission of the appellant that capital gain had accrued to the appellant on 30th November, 2000 and search action was taken on 14th February, 2001 during which time filing of the return had not become due and the assessee had duly disclosed the entire amount in its return for the -3- Assessment Year 2001-2002. More over the Tribunal has also referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr.M.K.E.Memon,reported in 248 ITR 310 which has been relied upon by CIT(A) and has been quoted with approval by ITAT. Over and above as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the assessee Mr.Pardiwala in paragraph 9 in no uncertain terms, it is stated as under:- "We have heard both sides and considered the material on record in the light of precedents relied upon before authorities below and the material on record and found that the basis and reasoning as given by learned CIT(A) are sound and convincing. The learned CIT(A) has considered each and every aspect of the matter before reaching to the conclusion as arrived at by him. Neither any infirmity or flaw has been pointed out nor has it been noticed by the Bench. It is also undisputed fact, as conceded by learned DR, that no material with respect to such transaction has been found in the search operation...." 4. From the above it is very clear that the revenue had itself conceded before the Tribunal that no material with -4- such transaction was found during the said search. The above appeal pertains to finding of fact and there is no substantial question of law involved in the above appeal. There is no substance in the above appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)