:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2007 Universal Arts Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 ..Respondent Mr.Vipul B. Joshi i/b. Sameer Dalal for the Appellant. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the above Appeal, the following substantial questions of law are sought to be raised; 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 was bad, illegal and void inasmuch as: (i) the ground for initiating the revision proceedings was erroneous contrary to the facts on the records; and (ii) the revision order was passed on a ground different from the ground on which the revision proceedings was initiated? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order of revision passed under Section 263 of the Act was bad and illegal inasmuch as the assessment order was not "erroneous" within the meaning of the section in as: (i) the Assessing Officer had done due verification regarding the claim with respect to share issue expenses; and :2: (ii) no material was brought on record even by the Commissioner of Income Tax to suggest that the claim with respect to the share issue expenses was not allowable under the Act? 2. We have perused the original Assessment order dated 12th March,2004 and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14th June,2007 especially the middle portion of paragraph No.6, which reads ad under: 6.................................In the light of the above principle if we examine the record carefully then it reveal that A.O. has accepted the statement of income on this issue as it is without making any enquiry. The alleged affidavit and the extract of order sheet placed on record do not indicate as to how the investigation was carried out by the A.O. We have directed the assessee to produce the assessment order passed in pursuance to 263 order as well as details of expenses. This exercise was carried out only with a view to understand the facts because neither from the order of the ld. Commissioner nor from the original assessment order the facts relating to the issue in dispute are discernible. After going through these facts we are of the view that ld. Commissioner has rightly taken up the cognizance under Section 263 because A.O. has not applied his mind and simply accepted the claim of the assessee. 3. In the light of the above, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above. The Appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)