The Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Panaji v. Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd

vinita - 1 - txa 73-17 dt 13.6.18. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2017. The Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Panaji., ... Appellant. Versus Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd., ... Respondent. Ms. S. Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Appellant.Mr. Gaurang D. Panandiker, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. M. JAMDAR &PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 13 June 2018. P.C.:- This appeal is raising following two substantial questions of law. As regards the first question of law, we have recorded in theorders dated 6 November 2017 and 6 December 2017 that the firstquestion of law does not arise. 2. As regards the second question of law is concerned, the Appellant has sought to agitate that the Tribunal did not record afinding regarding the amount assessable under Section 2(22)(e) of theIncome Tax Act in the hands of shareholders, Dr. William Britto and vinita - 2 - txa 73-17 dt 13.6.18. Mrs. Muriel Britto. 3. An order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officerin respect of the Respondent -Britto Amusement Pvt. Ltd. This orderdated 16 December 2011 was appealed before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals). The appeal was disposed of on 30 October2015. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, which was disposed of on 28 July 2016. 4.While disposing of the appeal by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) in paragraph 4.16 recorded as under:- "Respectfully, following the said decision int heappellant's own case for A.Y. 2004-04, in thiscase also, addition in the hands of the appellantcompany is deleted. However, this leaves it openfor the Assessing Officer to take necessary actionin the hands of the shareholders as deemed fit asper law and as interpreted by the superiorCourts.(Ground No.6 to 13 are allowed." The learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the issueregarding two shareholders i.e Dr. William Britto and Mrs. MurielBritto, after the decision of the CIT(Appeals) was never raised beforethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the grounds of appeal filedbefore the Tribunal will show that appeal was only in respect of vinita - 3 - txa 73-17 dt 13.6.18. liability of the Respondent's/assessee. The learned Counsel for theRespondent submitted that the second question (b) does not arise, asthere was no question of the Tribunal recording a finding since thisissue was never urged before the Tribunal. 5. Nothing is shown as to how this objection of the Respondent is incorrect or that this issue was raised. For the questionof law to arise, it should atleast be pleaded before the Tribunal, moreparticularly, if the question of law is that, that there is a failure of theTribunal to give a decision. All that we say is that there is no findingby the Tribunal to show that the liberty granted by the CIT (Appeals),as above, has been interfered with. 6.In this circumstances, since both the questions do notarise for our consideration, the appeal is disposed of. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. N. M. JAMDAR, J.