CIT Tax-27 Vs Jitendra Shivjibhai Patel (Bombay High Court)
Estimation of profit by AO and reduction in appeal does not result in substantial question of law: Bombay HC
The court considered appeals presented by the involved parties. Upon reviewing the submissions and hearing arguments, the court determined that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law. The central issue contested in these appeals was the method or outcome of profit estimation made by the Assessing Officer, which had subsequently been reviewed and either reduced or confirmed by the appellate authorities.
The court’s decision to not admit the appeals was based on the principle that a mere disagreement with the estimation of profit, which is primarily a factual determination derived from an assessment of the case’s circumstances and evidence, does not elevate the matter to the level of a “substantial question of law” required for the court to entertain the appeals. The court noted its consistent stance on similar matters, referencing previous instances, including specific case numbers, where appeals focused solely on profit estimation were also declined admission for the same reasoning.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. The only issue involves in these appeals is the estimate of profit made by the Assessing Officer which has been further reduced or confirmed by the Appellate Authorities. Therefore, no substantial question of law can be said to be arose from the Tribunal’s order.
