The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Siyaram Metals Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 47 of 2020 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusSIYARAM METALS PVT. LTD. ==========================================================Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 03/02/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax Appeal, under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act, 1961’), is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 28th June, 2019, in ITA No.350/RJT/2013 for the A.Y.2005-06. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following question of law, for the consideration of this Court: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred on law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of suppressed sales and under invoicing without appreciating that the matter is still pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication?” 3.Our attention has been drawn to the order passed by this Court dated 25th June, 2019 [Tax Appeal No.183 of 2019], in the case of very same assesses. In Tax Appeal No.183 of 2019 for the A.Y.2002-03, the very same question, as proposed in the present appeal, was considered by this Court. The Tax Appeal No.183 of 2019 came to be dismissed by this Court. 4.Having heard Ms.Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and having considered the proposed question of law and also having gone though the findings on record by the Tribunal,we are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.The question proposed, cannot be termed as the question of law much less the substantial question of law. 5.In the result, the Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) PALAK (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)