9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessment Year 1996-97, the Revenue was aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, dated 13.10.2010. 2. Though Mr. Pinto would submit that each of the questions proposed at pages 5 and 6 of the paper-book {(A), (B) & (C)} are substantial questions of law, we are unable to agree with him. 3. It may be that for prior assessment years there was a certain finding rendered by the Tribunal, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and that order was challenged before us in further appeal. However, merely because that further appeal was not pressed on account of a meagre revenue/tax impact, we do not think that the questions now proposed are substantial questions of law. 4. The Revenue submits that during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had offered an explanation that he paid the share application money in the earlier years in respect of these companies. It has also been stated that borrowed funds have not been used for making these share applications. The assessee also stated that the subsidiary companies could not allot the shares to the assessee because the Department had attached the amount and in that regard orders of the Department were relied upon. The explanation of the assessee was accepted in respect of the very three companies. However, the Assessing Officer proceeds on the footing that no explanation has been offered in respect of the advances and loans to the extent indicated above. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reversing this decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual finding referred to the settled principles, including those emerging from the Supreme Court's decision and held that nothing contrary on facts having been brought to its notice, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) does not call for any interference. 7. We do not think that such factual findings, consistent as they are with the materials placed on record, can be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (supra) considered the case of a assessee which transferred a huge amount of Rs. 82 lakhs to its subsidiary company out of the cash credit account of the assessee in which there was a huge debit balance. That i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether it was for commercial expediency. If the money is advanced to a sister concern, that is not relevant, but what is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 9. Of course, that would be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, para 36 of the Judgment in the case of S.A. Builders does not hold that in every case where the facts are similar to S.A. Builders', that orders of the Assessing Officer and as passed in the instant case have to be upheld. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not carry out the necessary exercise. The Assessing Officer, in fact, granted partial relief and for the balance without carrying out the necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
