THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. DAMODARBHAI BHIMJIBHAI PATEL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that all the questions proposed by the Revenue were essentially questions of fact and not substantial questions of law. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's order. The reasoning was that the ITAT's observations indicated that the disputes revolved around factual appreciation of evidence, such as the nexus of expenses with withdrawals, admissions made during statements, the identity of individuals mentioned on bills, and the interpretation of seized documents. Since the proposed questions did not raise any significant legal principle or interpretation of law, they did not qualify as substantial questions of law required for an appeal under Section 260A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of each addition. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of it not raising substantial questions of law.
What were the facts?
This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench. The ITAT's order, dated July 1, 2021, pertains to assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 (up to December 2, 1999). The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to uphold the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in deleting several additions made to the assessee's income. These deletions relate to alleged unaccounted household expenditure, unaccounted income from the Vanita Park project, unaccounted expenditure related to the City Centre project and Shiv Ashish Society construction project, and unaccounted investment in land for the Shiv Ashish Society project and another land investment.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law proposed by the Revenue: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs.3,42,912/- on account of unaccounted household expenditure, considering the bifurcation of expenses including school fees and hotel bills in the assessee's name, and the lack of nexus with withdrawals by the assessee's brother. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs.83,14,400/- despite the assessee admitting Rs.73,00,000/- as unaccounted income from the Vanita Park project and agreeing to pay taxes. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs.11,89,602/- on account of unaccounted expenditure for the City Centre project, given that bills were found at the assessee's premises and the name 'Damodar' on bills referred to a site supervisor. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs.91,43,177/- on account of unaccounted expenditure for the Shiv Ashish Society construction project, based on seized documents. 5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs.15,31,575/- on account of unaccounted investment in land for the Shiv Ashish Society construction project, based on seized documents. 6. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment in land, where the addition was based on seized material and a 'satakhat' was in the assessee's name. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting these additions. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat dated 1st July 2021 in the IT (SS)A No.52/AHD/2016 for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 (upto 2nd December 1999). 2 The Revenue has proposed the following questions for the consideration of this Court: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3,42,912/- on account of unaccounted household expenditure even though bifurcation of expenses included school fees expense, Hotel expense bill clearly reflect the name of the assessee and there is no nexus between the actual withdrawal made by the brother of the assessee, Shri Mohan B. Patel and expenses being incurred in the months of October 1999 and November 1999. C/TAXAP/185/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2022 (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.83,14,400/- despite categorically admitting during the course of recording of statement on oath that Rs.73,00,000/- (after deduction of expenses) was the unaccounted income from the Vanita park project and even agreed to pay taxes thereupon and took full responsibility about the ownership of the said project.. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.11,89,602/ on account of unaccounted expenditure related to City Centre project, Surat even though the bills of expenditure were found from the premises of the assessee and by making false claim to escape taxation by bringing in the name of a third person i.e. the name 'Damodar' mentioned on the bills was actually Damodarbai Manjibhai Bhavani working as site supervisor at city centre project, (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.91,43,177/ on account of unaccounted expenditure related to Shiv Ashish Society construction project, even though the addition was made on the basis of the seized document found during the course of search operation and was in fact expenditure of the assessee. (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.15,31,575/- on account of unaccounted investment in land related to Shiv Ashish Society construction project, even though the addition was made on the basis of the seized document found during the course of search operation and was in fact investment of the assessee. (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment in land inspite of the fact that the addition was made on the basis of the seized material found during the course of search proceedings and the satakhat was made in the name of the assessee who is one of the purchaser.” 3
We have heard Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. C/TAXAP/185/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2022 4 We are of the view, more particularly, having regard to the observations made by the Tribunal in its impugned order that all the questions proposed by the Revenue referred to above are more on facts. None of the questions could be termed as a substantial question of law. 5 In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) CHANDRESH
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
