Commissioner of Income Tax Central-IV vs Saimangal Investrade Ltd.

Having heard both sides and finding that the appeal raises only two substantial questions of law, we proceed to admit it. It is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing assessee''s claim of loss of Rs. 3,67,28,998/-?

(2) Whether the ITAT further erred in holding that the finding of investigation conducted by the JPC and SEBI regarding the security scan 2001 cannot be considered as evidence to frame the assessment order?"

Mr. Pinto appearing for the Revenue in support of this appeal submits that the Tribunal''s order dated 25th July, 2012, raises the questions at paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 all of which are substantial questions of law.

We find that in relation to these questions, beyond following a co-ordinate Division Bench decision, the Tribunal has done nothing. It has observed that the co-ordinate Bench decision binds the Revenue because there are no distinguishing features pointed out and on facts.

Mr. Jasani appearing for the assessee, however, produced before us a copy of the order passed by this Court on 1st March, 2013, in Income Tax Appeal No. 1647 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV v. M/s. Chitrakut Computers Pvt. Ltd.

We agree with Mr. Jasani that Question No. 5.3 in the present appeal at page 6 of the paper-book is identical to the question dealt with in M/s. Chitrakut Computers (supra) by the Division Bench. The factual controversy and the matter as a whole was identical. This Court has not admitted the question which is similar to Question 5.3 and proposed by the Revenue. For that purpose it rendered its reasoned conclusion. We have not been shown anything contrary to this ruling and order of the Division Bench. We are not informed that any order of the Division Bench contrary to this view has been rendered by this Court nor are we told that the Division Bench judgment and order in M/s. Chitrakut Computers has been reversed or set aside by the higher Court.

In the light of the finding and in identical terms as M/s. Chitrakut Computers essentially on facts, we do not think that the appeal can be entertained on Question Nos. 5.3 to 5.5. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

The Registrar (Judicial)/Registrar, High Court, Original Side, Bombay to ensure that the original record in relation to this Appeal is summoned from the Tribunal and offered for inspection of the parties. This paper book is treated sufficient for the purpose of admission of this Appeal. However, the Registry must further ensure preparation of complete paper book in accordance with the Rules. The Registry in the first instance must send intimation of admission of this Appeal enclosing therewith a copy of this order so as to enable the Tribunal to act accordingly.

Mr. Jasani waives service for the assessee.