PCIT Vs Dhondiram Narayan Limbhore (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court disposed of 38 connected income-tax appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–2, Thane, involving several assessees, including Dhondiram Narayan Limbhore, Mohan Panditrao Gokulkar, Rose Industries, R. S. Castor Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ajay Trivedi, Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ltd., Somit Forgings and others. The appeals were heard together before a Division Bench comprising Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. J. Jamadar on 26 February 2022.
During the hearing, counsel for the Revenue stated that all the appeals were covered by two earlier orders of the Bombay High Court: the order dated 11 February 2019 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 and connected matters, and the order dated 15 July 2019 in Income Tax Appeal No. 4138 of 2017. The first order is identifiable as PCIT v. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., in which the High Court examined the treatment of alleged bogus purchases where corresponding sales were not disputed and approved restriction of additions by reference to the gross-profit differential. The present order does not independently examine the facts, assessment years, disputed purchase amounts or evidentiary records of the 38 appeals.
Instead, recording the Revenue’s submission that the earlier judgments governed the matters and that nothing survived for consideration, the Court disposed of all appeals through a common order. Consequently, the present decision is significant primarily as an application of the earlier controlling orders to a large group of connected Revenue appeals. It should not be read as independently fixing a uniform addition percentage or determining the merits of each assessee’s purchase transactions.
Cases Discussed
1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. — Income Tax Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 and connected appeals; Bombay High Court; 11 February 2019. The Revenue expressly stated that this earlier order covered the present appeals. The earlier judgment addressed the appropriate addition for disputed purchases where corresponding sales were accepted, holding on its facts that the gross-profit differential, rather than the entire purchase amount, should be brought to tax.
2. Bombay High Court order in Income Tax Appeal No. 4138 of 2017 — 15 July 2019. This was the second earlier order expressly identified by the Revenue as covering the connected appeals. The uploaded judgment does not identify the parties or reproduce the reasoning of that order. Its case identity and exact TaxGuru judgment URL have not been independently established.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Walve states that all these appeals are covered by an order dated 11th February 2019 of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1004 of 2016 and others and order dated 15th July 2019 in Income Tax Appeal No.4138 of 2017 of this Court and, therefore, nothing survives in these appeals.
2. Appeals are disposed.
