1 ITL56,57&58.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2017
Vilas Mahadeorao Harde,
N-110, Reshimbagh,
Nagmoti Layoug,
Nagpur-440 009. ... APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Aayakar Bhawan, Telankhedi Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. L.S. & K.P. Dewani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for the Respondent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2017
Vilas Mahadeorao Harde,
N-110, Reshimbagh,
Nagmoti Layoug,
Nagpur-440 009. ... APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Aayakar Bhawan, Telankhedi Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. L.S. & K.P. Dewani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for the Respondent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:35 :::
2 ITL56,57&58.17.odt
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2017
Vilas Mahadeorao Harde,
N-110, Reshimbagh,
Nagmoti Layoug,
Nagpur-440 009. ... APPELLANT
.. Versus ..
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Aayakar Bhawan, Telankhedi Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. L.S. & K.P. Dewani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for the Respondent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : September 7, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. On 24.08.2017 we passed an order which is reproduced below :-
"The amount of Rs.30.10 lakhs assessed as income at the hands of the appellant - Vilas ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:35 ::: 3 ITL56,57&58.17.odt Mahadeorao Harde in the assessment year 2006-2007 is the subject matter of challenge in Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2017. The contention of the appellant is that this amount is not assessable at the hands of the appellant. According to the Department, the said amount is received under the receipts in the name of M/s. Maharaja Developer, the possession of which is found with the appellant. According to the Department, the firm M/s. Maharaja Developer had disowned this amount and according to it, it is required to be included in the assessment of the appellant.
Income Tax Appeal No. 57 of 2017 pertains to inclusion of cash of Rs.12,86,786/- in the assessment of income tax payable by the appellant for the assessment year 2007-
08. According to Shri Dewani, the learned counsel for the appellant, this amount belongs to the firm M/s. Maharaja Developer and therefore, it cannot be included in the income of assessee for the assessment year 2007-08. According to the Department, it was a cash which was found in the hands of the appellant in search and therefore, it cannot be included in the assessment of income tax of M/s. Maharaja Developer, which has disowned it. Shri Bhattad further submits that this amount was not added in the income of M/s. Maharaja Developer for the said assessment year.
Income Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2017 relates to inclusion of an amount of Rs.22 lakhs in the assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 2007-08. This is received under the receipts of M/s. Maharaja Developer, which is found to be in possession of the appellant and recovered in the course of search. Shri Dewani, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this amount should not have been included in the assessment of income of the appellant for the assessment year 2007-08 for the reason that the amount belongs to the firm. According to the Department, this amount is already assessed in the account of M/s. Maharaja Developer.
Shri Bhattad, the learned counsel appearing for the Department submits that the appeals filed by M/s. Maharaja Developer are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the orders were passed. There appears some dispute between the appellant and the ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:36 ::: 4 ITL56,57&58.17.odt partners of M/s. Maharaja Developer.
In this background, the question is whether the amounts in question are to be included in the account of M/s. Maharaja Developer as its income for computation of tax or in the account of the assessee, the appellant herein.
After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we frame the following common substantial question of law arising out of all these appeals for consideration by this Court.
In view of the fact that the appeals preferred by M/s.Maharaja Developer are pending for adjudication before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whether the orders passed by the Tribunal which are impugned in these appeals can be set aside with an order of remand, so that all the matters can be heard together after the decision in appeals preferred by M/s. Maharaja Developer by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), so as to avoid possible conflict in the decision.
Admit.
Learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice.
Put up these appeals for final disposal on next Thursday i.e. on 31.08.2017 by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. "
3. Shri Bhattad, the learned counsel for the Department invites our attention to the submission made by him before this Court in the aforesaid order that the appeals filed by M/s. Maharaja Developers are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the orders were passed. Shri Bhattad submits that there is no quarrel about the statement made before this Court that the Tribunal ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:36 ::: 5 ITL56,57&58.17.odt was not aware about the appeals filed by M/s. Maharaja Developers before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He however, submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has now decided all the appeals preferred by M/s. Maharaja Developers on 12.09.2014 and 31.07.2014. He further informs that he is not aware as to whether any appeal is preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against these decisions delivered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that in terms of substantial question of law framed by this court, the matters required to be remanded back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the decision afresh to avoid the possible conflict in the cases of assessee as well as M/s. Maharaja Developers. Hence, these appeals will have to be allowed with an order of remand.
5. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Income Tax No.203/Nag/2012 and the orders dated 10.07.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Income Tax Appeal Nos.295/Nag/2013 & 307/Nag/2013 are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide it afresh. If it is ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:36 ::: 6 ITL56,57&58.17.odt found that the appeals have been preferred against the order dated 12.09.2014 and 31.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Nagpur, the said appeals shall also be decided along with these appeals by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
waghmare
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:36 :::