THE PRINCIPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DR. WILLIAM BRITTO 184
LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-296
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 28,2016

The Principal, Commissioner Of Income Tax Appellant
VERSUS
Dr. William Britto 184 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

F.M.REIS,J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Rivankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) The challenge by the Revenue is to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erroneously interfered in the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), as according to the appellant, there was sufficient material on record to suggest that the subject amount of Rupees Six crores was credited to the personal account of the assessee. It was further submitted that as such, as the A.O. had not done proper investigation nor sought the information with regard to the source of such amount, the Commissioner was justified to exercise powers of Revisional jurisdiction and direct the A.O. to proceed with the assessment afresh. It is further submitted that considering the contrary stand taken by the respondent before the Civil Court in connection with the subject amount, would itself suggests that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified and as such the Tribunal was not justified to interfere in such order. The learned counsel has taken us extensively to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax to point out that the learned Commissioner has minutely examined the relevant aspect to come to the conclusion that the case is made out for exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel as such points out that there are substantial questions of law for consideration in the appeal.
(3.) On the other hand, Shri Rivankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has pointed out that it is well settled that a mere erroneous approach by the Assessing Officer would not, by itself, be a ground for exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner. The learned counsel further points out that there is a categorical finding in the order passed by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the subject amount of Rupees Six crores has been assessed in the hands of Britto Amusement Private Limited which is a Company which has been floated by the respondent. It is further pointed out that the amount has been transferred by a banking transaction and as such, the question of any interference in the order passed by the learned Tribunal would not at all arise. It is further pointed out that as such there are no substantial question of law which arise for consideration.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.