2011 (7) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT

Appeal u/s 130E - Undervaluation - Confiscation - it is clear from the afore-extracted order of the High Court that it does not meet the requirement of stating reasons for coming to the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal did not give rise to any substantial question of law including the question extracted in para 5 above - It would bear repetition that none of the said questions seek to challenge the findings of the Tribunal or that of the Commissioner, on the issue raised in the questions, as perverse - Held that: in order to avoid prolongation in the life of lis between the appellant and the revenue, it would be expedient to follow the latter option, because ultimately the High Court may also like to have the views of Tribunal on the impact of the said decision of this Court on the facts of the present case, since the said decision, was not available to the Tribunal when the appeal of the appellant was decided by it - Appeal is partly allowed