PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 3 vs. GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIA

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/803/2019HC GujaratGJHC24068351201910 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA13 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no interference was warranted as the Tribunal, based on the materials produced and analyzed, arrived at findings of fact. The Court found concurrent findings of fact by both the ITAT and CIT(A) on issues (a) to (e), thus these questions of law could not be termed substantial questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds. Regarding question (f), the Court noted that the Tribunal had confirmed the application of Section 292C, so this question did not arise from the impugned order. For question (g), the Court found that the Tribunal arrived at findings of fact based on the materials before it, without ignoring relevant material or considering irrelevant material, and without arriving at a conclusion without evidence. The Court stated that the Tribunal considered the details of each addition deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also upheld the inference drawn by the CIT(A) under Section 292C. The Court concluded that the Tribunal provided cogent reasons and arrived at its conclusions based on the record, and therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed two appeals against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated June 6, 2019, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeals arise from survey action under Section 133A conducted on March 26, 2009, where books of accounts and documents were impounded. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 28,49,83,580 against a returned income of Rs. 1,71,550, making various additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed some additions, deleted others, and partly allowed some. The assessee and the Revenue both appealed to the ITAT. The ITAT partly allowed the assessee's appeal and upheld the AO and CIT(A)'s findings by invoking Section 292C.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law. The Revenue's primary contention in Tax Appeal No. 803 of 2019 was whether the ITAT erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s order without considering the effect of Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Tax Appeal No. 804 of 2019, the Revenue raised multiple issues: (a) whether the ITAT erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on account of unaccounted loan and advances and interest of Rs. 4,82,56,000; (b) whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of additions on account of unaccounted income of Rs. 1,50,000; (c) whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of additions on account of unaccounted income of Rs. 12,63,96,132 and on-money receipts of Rs. 40,27,600; (d) whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of additions on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of Rs. 97,24,958; (e) whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of additions on account of unaccounted income of Rs. 34,82,000, Rs. 1,42,60,000, and Rs. 5,43,49,000 to Rs. 1,34,86,000; (f) whether the ITAT erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s order without considering the assessee's failure to explain impounded documents and the applicability of Section 292C; and (g) whether the ITAT's order was perverse in deleting additions based on loose papers, ignoring Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in accepting the assessee's explanations and in deleting additions made by the AO, particularly concerning impounded documents and the presumption under Section 292C. The Revenue also argued that the ITAT ignored the burden of proof as defined in Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 292C,Section 143(3),Section 251(1),Section 251(2),Section 69C,Section 110

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/803/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 803 of 2019 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 804 of 2019 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 3 Versus GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIA ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 10/02/2020

COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1 Both the appeals are filed at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961  [for short, 'the Act, 1961'] arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat [for short, 'Tribunal'] dated 6th June 2019 in ITA No.1615/Ahd/2014 filed by the assessee and ITA No.1730/Ahd/2014 filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2009­10. 2 The Revenue has proposed the following question as substantial question of law in Tax Appeal No.803 of 2019 out of appeal filed by assessee before the Tribunal being ITA No.1615/Ahd/2014: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble  ITAT  erred  in upholding  the order passed  by the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the effect of the provisions of Section 292C of the I.T. Act?” 3 The   following   questions   of   law   are   proposed   as   substantial questions of law in Tax Appeal No.804 of 2019 arising out of appeal filed by Revenue before the Tribunal being ITA No.1730/Ahd/2014: “(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition made on account of unaccounted loan and advances and   interest   of   Rs.4,82,56,000/­   by   accepting   the   explanation   of   the assessee? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect   of   addition   made   on   account   of   unaccounted   income   of Rs.1,50,000/­ by accepting the explanation of the assessee? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect   of   additions   made   on   account   of   unaccounted   income   of Rs.12,63,96,132/­   and   on   account   of   receipt   of   on­money   of Rs.40,27,600/­ by accepting the explanation of the assessee? (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of Rs.97,24,958/­? (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on account of unaccounted income of Rs.34,82,000/­, Rs.1,42,60,000/­ and Rs.5,43,49,000/­ to Rs.1,34,86,000/­, by accepting the explanation of the assessee? (f) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue without considering that the   assessee   during   the   assessing   proceeding   failed   to   explain   the documents / loose papers found and impounded from his premises and even disowned the same whereas the provisions of Section 292C of I.T. Act were clearly applicable? (g) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO on the basis of loose papers found and   impounded   from   his   premises   of   the   assessee,   which   were   not explained or disowned by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and by completely ignoring the provisions of Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act where burden of proof as to ownership has been defined as “whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner?” 4 The facts giving rise to these appeals may summarised as under:

4.

1 The   survey   action   under   Section   133A   of   the   Act,   1961   was conducted on 26th March 2009. During the course of survey proceeding, books   of   accounts   and   documents   found   were   investorised     and impounded. 5 The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 was passed   by   the   Assessing   Officer   determining   the   total   income   of Rs.28,49,83,580/­ against the returned income of Rs.1,71,550/­. The Assessing Officer made the following additions:­ Sr. No. Nature of addition Amount (Rs.) 1 On account profit earned in the year form unaccounted receipts 86,44,340 2 On account of unaccounted income 4,82,56,000 3 On account of unaccounted income 5,72,000 4 On account of unaccounted income 1,50,000 5 On account of unaccounted income 12,6396,132 6 On account of unaccounted on­money receipts 40,27,600 7 On account of unaccouned expenditure u/s 69C of the Act 97,24,958 8 On account of unaccounted income 34,82,000 9 On account of unaccounted income 1,43,60,000 10 On account of unaccounted income 5,43,49,000 6 The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by order dated 26th March 2014 confirmed the additions of Rs.86,44,340/­ pertaining to profit earned in the year from unaccounted receipts   and   Rs.5,72,000/­   pertaining   to   unaccounted   income.   The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee as under: Sr. No. Nature of addition Amount (Rs.) Addition confirmed / deleted by CIT(A) 1 On account of profit earned in the y ear form unaccounted receipts 86,44,340 Confirmed 2 On account of unaccounted income 4,82,56,000 Deleted 3 On account of unaccounted income 5,72,000 Confirmed On account of unaccounted income 1,50,00,000 Deleted 5 On account unaccounted income 12,63,96,132 Deleted 6 On account of unaccounted on­ money receipts 40,27,600 Deleted 7 On account of unaccounted expenditure u/s 69C of the Act 97,24,958 Deleted 8 On account of unaccounted income 1,43,60,000 Partly   allowed by   restricting the addition to Rs.1,34,86,000 /­   out   of  total addition   made of Rs.7,21,91,000 9 On account of unaccounted income 1,43,60,000 10 On account of unaccounted income 5,43,49,000 7 The CIT(A) also enhanced the following addition under Section 251(1) read with Section 251(2) of the Act, 1961: [1] Rs.1,90,00,000/­ on account of unaccounted disclosed capital grain. [2] Rs.38,90,500/­ on account of cash deposit from undisclosed sources. 8 The assessee being aggrieved by the addition sustained by the CIT(A) preferred ITA No.1615/Ahd/2014 whereas the Revenue being aggrieved   by   the   order   passed   by   the   CIT(A)   preferred   ITA No.1730/Ahd/2014 before the Tribunal. 9 The Tribunal partly allowed appeal filed by the assessee giving partial relief to the assessee in respect of amount of Rs.5,72,000/­ on account of unaccounted income by restricting addition to Rs.72,000/­ by applying the telescoping with respect to addition sustained of Rs.86.44 lakhs on account of profit earned from the unaccounted receipts. The Tribunal upheld the finding arrived at by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) by invoking the presumption under Section 292C of the Act, 1961. The Tribunal held as under: “16 We have heard the rlval submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the lmpounded material BF­2 page 51 was found from the premises of the assessee being computer printout indicating that loan of Rs.1 Iakh each was given the 4 persons namely Premjibhai,   Lavjibhai,   Rameshbhai   and   Pareshbhai   indicating   a   loan agreement   and   clearly   mentioning   that   the   principal   amount   with monthly interest  and yearly interest from each individuals. Therefore, unless otherwise proved, it will be presumed that such books of accounts etc., belongs to such person and its contents are true as per provisions of section 292C of the Act. We, further fînd that Id. CIT(A) has supported his view with regard to presumption u/s.292C of the Act by placing reliance in the case of Asstt. CIT  v.Vatika Greenfîeld (P) Ltd. [2009] 121 ‘ITJH (Delhí) 208 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiren Vasantlal Shah [2012] 19 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held as under: “It   was   held   that   section   292C   of   the   Income­tax   Act,   1961 Presumption as to assets, books of  account, etc. Pursuant to a search at assessee’s premises, certain documents were found and one of such documents contained working of interest at rate of 3 per cent on total sum of Rs. 3 Iakh Assessee was directed to explain contents   of   document   found   during   course   of   search   Assessee explained that contents of said document were rough working and no   loan   was   given   out   Assessing   Officer   rejected   assessee’s explanation   ­   Whether   on   basis   of   material   recovered   during search, lower authorities had rightly drawn presumption in terms of section 292C Held, yes Whether, therefore, impugned addition was to be confirmed Held, yes [In favour of revenue]”

17.

Since the incriminating documents was recovered from the premises of the assessee, therefore, we find no reason to draw adverse inference in the finding recorded by the lower authorities, accordingly same is confirmed. However, the addition on the basis of seized material is worked out to Rs. 4,72,000 [being loan amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs and interest of Rs.72,000/­]. Therefore, addition of Rs. 4,72,000 is confirmed and balance addition of Rs. 1,00,000 is deleted. However, since the assessee  has claimed that telescoping should be allowed with respect to addition sustained in Ground No. 1 above Rs.86.44 lakhs. The assessee is entitled to telescoping of Rs.4 lakhs.   Therefore,   same   is   allowed   out   of   Rs.86.44   lakhs.   Therefore, addition of Rs.4 lakhs sustained is covered by telescoping and balance addition of Rs.72,000/is upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.”

In   view   of   the   aforesaid   finding   given   by   the   Tribunal,   the question raised by the Revenue cannot be termed as substantial question of law as the Tribunal has considered the effect of provision of Section 292C of the Act, 1961 as applied by the CIT(A) applying the telescoping reduced the addition giving partial relief to the assessee. 11 In   such   circumstances,   no   question   of   law   much   less   any substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal in respect of Tax Appeal No.803 of 2019. Accordingly, Tax Appeal No.803 of 2019 stands dismissed. 12 With regard to questions of law arising out of the order from the appeal  filed by the  Revenue being Tax Appeal No.804 of 2019 are concerned, the Tribunal has arrived at finding of fact for each of the questions as under: ● Question [a]: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case by   the   Ld.CIT(A)   in   respect   of   addition   made   on   account   of unaccounted loan and advances and interest of Rs.4,82,56,000/­ by accepting the explanation of the assessee?

on record. We Find that the impounded sheet contained name of probable lenders as date of interest column dated and amount of interest payable has been found as blank. Further, six persons mentioned in the chart have denied to have done any financial transactions with the assessee. The AO has   wrongly   treated   these   as   loans   given   We   have   heard   the   rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We Find that the impounded sheet contained name of probable lenders as date of interest column dated and amount of interest payable has been found as blank. Further, six persons mentioned in the chart have denied to have done any financial transactions with the assessee. The AO has wrongly treated these as loans given whereas the list / chart indicates probable lenders. We Find that   the   AO   has   not   brought   on   record   anything   contrary   to   the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, in such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), accordingly, same is upheld. This ground of appeal of revenue is therefore, dismissed.” ● Question [b]: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case by   the   Ld.   CIT(A)   in   respect   of   addition   made   on   account unaccounted   income   of   Rs.1,50,00,000/­   by   accepting   the explanation of the assessee?

on record. We find that BF­2 Page No. 40 reflected 10 number cheques of Rs. 15 Lakh each in respect of Five person. These cheques were pertaining to Bhavnagar District Co­operative Bank Ltd. with whom the assessee, nor any of his family members were having any bank account. Further, such cheques were not cleared or deposited with bank account of the assessee maintained with Surat Peoples Co­operative Bank Ltd. These facts stands verified by the AO during remand report proceedings and by Ld. CIT(A) in appellate   proceedings.   Therefore,   in   absence   of   any   corroborating evidences, the addition made by the AO in respect of cheque entries has been   rightly   deleted.   Having   careful   consideration   of   facts   and circumstances,   we   do   not   find   any  infirmity   in   the   order   of   CIT(A), accordingly, it is upheld. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal of revenue is therefore, dismissed.” ● Question [c]: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of additions made on account of unaccounted   income   of   Rs.12,63,96,132/­   ad   on   account   of receipt   of   on­money   of   Rs.40,27,600/­   by   accepting   the explanation of the assessee?

on record. We Find that the AO has made addition based on impounded Anx­BF­2 Page No. 1 to 39 which reflected the payments of and on­money in respect of 170 persons against whom details are mentioned. However, during the remand report proceedings, the AO had made enquiries on the basis of address available on record, details were called for under section 133(6)   of   the   Act   from   Smt.   Kirtiben   Vishrambhai   Moradia,   Shri Vishrambhai Kanjibhai Moradia, Smt. ]agrutiben Jitendra Navadiya , Shri Ramesbhai Diyabhai Goyani, whose names were reflecting in Sarajn and asked to furnish details of address of Sarjan, copy of sale deed, payment details with Sarjan and transaction carried out with the assessee during period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 with details of IT returns, PAN  and  photo  identity  proof.  The   AO  has  reported  that  the  above­ mentioned parties submitted their replies wherein they have stated that Sarjan   is   registered   co­operative   society   with   the   name   of   Sarjan (Katragam)   Co­Operative   Housing   society   Ltd.   incorporated   on 20.10.2004, situated a Laxmikant Road Katargam Surat. It was noticed that Shrí Pareshbhai Davera (Patel) signed the certificate as Pramukh. Therefore, summons under section 131 of the Act was issued to Paresh Patel, whose statement was recorded on 04.12.2012 in which he stated that Shri Ghanshyambhaí D Sutariya is having no connection with his society. He is neither member nor holding any plot in Sarjan society. He do not know as to how the papers of Sarajn were found during survey at the premises of Ghanshyam D Sutariya. The Other members from whom information was collected under section 133(6) also denied knowing the appellant or having any type of financial transactions with the appellant. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) observed that the appellant has in no way   associated   with   Sarjan   Co­operative   Society.   Having   careful consideration of above facts, we are of the considered opinion there was no corroborating evidences on record, which suggested that the transactions, were related to in any manner with the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) was not in error in deleting the addition so made by the AO. Therefore, this grounds of appeal of revenue is accordingly, dismissed.” ● Question [d]: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in   respect   of   addition   made   on   account   of   unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of Rs.97,24,958/­?

on record. We find that the AO has made enquiries during the course of remand proceedings wherein he has examined Shri Lavjibhai Haribhai Patel, the President of Madhav Darshan Co­op Housing Society Ltd. who developed the Laxmi Darshan Complex. It has been emerged that the assessee has acted as Panch in resolving a dispute arose between members of society on reducing the alignment of shops by the SMC. Since the CIT(A) as well the AO has accepted that the assessee has no financial deahngs with Laxmi Darshan Complex. The copy of papers of the society being a copy of decision taken by the member of society was found in possession of the assessee as he being a Panch has retained a copy of decision taken by the Panchayat. Having careful consideration of facts, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure of Rs.97,24,958/­. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal of Revenue is therefore, dismissed.” ● Question [e]: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case by   the   Ld.   CIT(A)   on   account   of   unaccounted   income   of Rs.34,82,000/­,   Rs.1,42,60,000/­   and   Rs.5,43,49,000/­   to Rs.1,34,86,000/­ by accepting the explanation of the assessee? This question is also arising in the appeal filed by the assessee as the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by restricting the   addition   to   Rs.1,34,86,000/­   out   of   total   addition   made   of Rs.7,21,21,91,000/­ on account of unaccounted income by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there were cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue respectively. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal in respect of the addition sustained by the CIT (A) of Rs.1,34,86,000/­ held as under: “27 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We Fund that the entries appearing in impounded material being Anx­BF­3, Page No. 86 and 92 and other loose papers contained details of receipts of booking money in respect of various plots the total of such plot has been worked out as ten number of plots of which explanation was filed by the assessee vide his letter dated 13.03.2014 which   has   been   reproduced   by   the   ld.CIT(A)   in   para   No.6.8.4,   as reproduced   above.   Accordingly,   the   total   payments   by   buyers   was computed at Rs.74,66,000/­ and interest compensation to buyers was computed   at   Rs.60,20,000/­   aggregating   to   Rs.1,34,86,000/­.   The ld.CIT(A)   has  also  considered  and  decoded   the  amount  mentioned   in respect of these plots, considered and cited specific example in respect of Plot No.86 the amount which was written in coded figures and arrived at a correct figure of which working is given in Para 6.8.5 of his order as reproduced in this appellate order above. Thus, considering the totality of the   facts   and   details   entries   pertaining   to   each   plot   recorded   in   the impounded document showed that the assessee has sold 10 plots to various 10 buyers and had received a sum of Rs.74,66,000/as advanced towards the sale of plot. It is further noticed that the assessee has paid simple interest @2% per month on the amount deposited by the buyer which has been calculated  at Rs.60,20,000/­ by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the total amount returned back to the various buyers has been worked out at RS.1,34,86,000/­[ 74,66,000 + 60,20,000] which included the interest as well as the principal amount. Since, the assessee was not able to furnish any details regarding the source of these payments the ld.CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition to this extent. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity   in   the   order   the   ld.CIT(A)   in   sustaining   the   addition   of Rs.1,34,86,000/­, hence, same is upheld. With regard to Revenue’s ground of appeal in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.34,82,000/­ we find that this   amount   of   addition   is   already   been   covered   by   the   addition   of Rs.1,34,86,000/sustained   in   respect   of   plot   no.86   and   92   which   are figuring in para 6.8.4 at Sl.No.6 & 9 of the table. Therefore, we do not find   any   infirmity   in   deleting   of  the   said   addition  by   the   Id.CIT(A),

accordingly this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Similarly, with regard to addition of Rs.5,43,49,000/­, we find that these additions have been made on the basis of impounded Page No.73 & 74 of Annexure ­B, F3 which has been already taken care of by the ld. CIT(A) while considering the total number of 10 plots as discussed and appearing in para 6.8.4 at Page No.29 of the appellate order as reproduced above. Therefore,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   Id.CIT(A)   has analyzed all the entries appearing in the impounded material and also have obtained the remand report from the AO. Therefore, since the factual aspects has been examined by the Id.CIT(A), hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of Id.CIT(A), accordingly restriction the addition of unaccounted   income   of   Rs.34,82,000/­   Rs.1,42,60,000/­   and Rs.5,43,49,000/­ to Rs.1,34,86,000/­ is correctly found to be correct. In view of this matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Id.CIT(A),

accordingly Ground No.5 of the Revenue appeal is therefore dismissed. With regard to claim of benefit of telescoping out of remaining addition of Rs.74,66,000/­. We are of the view that the same is required to be co­ related with the amount of received from the prospective buyers at the time   of   booking.   This   aspect   has   not   been   examined   by   the   lower authorities. Accordingly, set­aside for limited purpose to the file of the Assessing   Officer,   for   examination   if   there   is   any  co­relation   between income of Rs.74.66 Iakhs generated and said amount was available for set­off against the amount paid. The Assessing Officer will examine the claim of cash flow fund out of which, how much amount can be telescoped by way of these payments. Therefore, this ground is set­aside for limited verification. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is dismissed with limited verification and ground No.5 of the Revenue is dismissed.” With regard to above questions, as the Tribunal on the basis of the materials produced before it and after analysing the same has arrived at finding of fact, no interference is warranted. As there are concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities, none of the questions of law being questions No.[a] to [e] can be termed as substantial questions of law, the appeal stands dismissed. 14 As regards to questions Nos.[f] is concerned, the same pertains to application of Section 292C of the Act, 1961 and perversity in the order of the Tribunal. As the Tribunal has, in fact, confirmed the application of Section 292C of the Act, 1961 invoked by the CIT(A), question No.[f] does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. 15 As regard to question No.[g], the Tribunal has arrived at finding of fact on the basis of the materials placed before it, there is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has ignored the material   which   is   required   to   be   considered   or   has   taken   into consideration the material which is not relevant. Moreover, it is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has arrived at the aforesaid finding of fact without any evidence. Therefore, the application of Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be said to be ignored by the Tribunal, as canvassed by the Revenue. In the facts of the case, the Tribunal has considered in detail in respect of each of the additions deleted by the CIT(A) and after analysing the material, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). As such there are concurrent finding of fact as stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal is perverse   in   upholding   the   order   passed   by   the   CIT(A)   deleting   the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of loose papers found and impounded from the premises of the assessee. The Tribunal has also upheld the inference drawn by the CIT(A) under Section 292C of the Act, 1961 so as to sustain the additions made by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal has given cogent reasons and arrived at conclusion on the basis of the materials and the fact found on record, which cannot be interfered in absence of any material on record to show the contrary fact on record. 17 In such circumstances, both the appeals fail, and are, accordingly, dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) CHANDRESH

More judgments on Section 292C

All 1,055 judgments and leading authorities on Section 292C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →