COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JALAJ BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed on June 3, 2011, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 1971/Mum/2009 of the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal dealt with two appeals and the other one is Income Tax Appeal No. 1931/Mum/2009 which was preferred by the assessee. These appeals were directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central III, Mumbai, dated January 19, 2009.

(2.) Mr. Ahuja, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the questions of law at pages 7 and 8 of the paper book are substantial because the Tribunal's order is perverse. It does not take into consideration the issue of telescopic benefit of Rs. 3.52 crores. That benefit has been granted without considering the fact that the assessee admittedly does not maintain any books of account. He has nothing to support his oral stand that the investment in assets and expenditure had been incurred but of disclosure made after search operation. Similarly, with regard to the question (c) Mr. Ahuja complains that the order of the Tribunal is perverse because in the absence of any evidence or supporting material the claim has been granted.

(3.) On the other hand, the assessee's advocate would submit that there are pure findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal after duly considering the order of the Assessing Officer and the findings therein. Further, the documents which were before the Assessing Officer only have been noted. There is no substance in the complaint that such of the claims or grounds which have been given up before the first appellate authority are allowed to be raised in the Tribunal. In that regard the counsel submits that question (a) has been framed and termed as substantial question of law without appreciating that no benefit has been given to the assessee with regard to the transactions or the dealings with M/s. Sonal Fin. Cap. Pvt. Ltd. All that the Tribunal has done is to have a look at the bank account, the deposits and the withdrawals therefrom and deducted such of the items which led to double taxation. Meaning thereby when both the receipts and withdrawals from the bank account have been taxed the Tribunal found that this is a case of double taxation and which could not have been permitted in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and deserves to be dismissed.