Bombay High Court
Shri Vilas Mahadeorao Harde vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, ... on 7 September, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
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 00:41:34 :::
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
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
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
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
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
