Madhya Pradesh High Court
Essence Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2023
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ESSENCE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH
SHRI SHAILESH AGRAWAL S/O SHRI SURESH
CHANDRA AGRAWAL, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O 630,
USHA NAGAR EXTENTION, OPP. DASHAHRA
MAIDAN, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX (CENTRAL)-1, ROOM NO.101, AAYKAR
1. BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(APPEAL-3) ROOM NO. 103, AAYKAR
2.
BHAWAN, AREA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD
ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 17.08.2023
Pronounced on : 10.10.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 assailing the final order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore in Cross Objection No. 04/IND/2021
(arising out of the ITA 278/IND/2020) in respect of the Assessment Year
2012-13 proposes the following substantial questions of law :
(1) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case,
the Ld. ITAT. merely erred in not deciding the
grounds raised by the appellant in the cross
objection specifically the ground no. 3 pertaining
to the A.Y. 2012-13?
(2) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case,
the Ld. ITAT merely brushed aside all the
grounds raised in the cross objection by holding
that the grounds raised in the cross objection
merely in support of the order of the First
Appellate Authority and no substantial arguments
were raised whereas the grounds raised in the
appeal before the ITAT specifically ground no. 3
was challenging the addition sustain by the First
Appellate Authority?
(3) Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse
and therefore to the extent of the ground no.3
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM
order of the Ld. ITAT ought to have been set
aside?
2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant
pressed the aforesaid three substantial questions of law.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission.
4. The findings rendered by the Tribunal are tested on envil of aforesaid
three proposed substantial questions of law and this Court finds thus : The
grounds of assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are identical and
similar and the learned CIT (DR) could not show any distinct or dissimilar
factual position of situation between the A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Ys. 2012-13 and
2013-14. Therefore, the conclusion recorded in the appeal filed by the
Revenue with regard to ground Nos. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12
would apply mutatis mutandis to ground No. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Ys.
2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee has filed the cross objections only to
support the first appellate order. However, no substantial arguments were
advanced in support of cross objections by the assessee. The appeals of the
revenue having been dismissed for the A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14,
the cross objection having become academic and infructuous were not
adjudicated. In the result, the cross objections raising the grounds (1) to (3)
filed by the assess were dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM
5. In the matter of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari
MANU/SC/0091/2001:[2001] 3 SCC 179, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed the following:
"A point of law which admits of no two opinions may
be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial
question of law. To be substantial, a question of law
must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the
land or a binding precedent, and must have a material
bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either
way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are
concerned. To be a question of law involving in the
case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the
pleadings and the question should emerge from the
sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts
and it must be necessary to decide that question of law
for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely
new point raised for the first time before the High
Court is not a question involved in the case unless it
goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend
on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a
question of law is a substantial one and involved in
the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration
being the need for striking a judicious balance
between the indispensable obligation to do justice at
all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding
prolongation in the life of any lis"
6. In view of the above discussion and the findings arrived at by the ITAT,
this Court is of the view that neither any of the proposed substantial questions
of law (1) to (3), nor any other substantial question of law arises for
consideration herein.
7. Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of law having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM
been made out by the assessee, the present appeal preferred by the assessee
against the order impugned passed by the ITAT, Indore does not deserve to be
admitted.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
10/10/2023 5:24:28 PM
