PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. RITABEN PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1291/2018HC GujaratGJHC24063152201819 November 2018Author: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the appellant's counsel had fairly brought to its attention an order dated 8.10.2018 passed in Tax Appeal No.1204 of 2018, which dealt with Late Shantaben P. Patel and arose from the same transaction. In that prior case, the High Court had dismissed the appeal on an identical question of law. Therefore, the controversy in the present appeal was considered concluded by the earlier decision. For the reasons recorded in the judgment of Tax Appeal No.1204 of 2018, the present appeal was also found not to give rise to any substantial question of law and was accordingly dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the addition or deletion was provided, as the decision was based on precedent.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12 and concerns the deletion of an addition of Rs.13,97,290/- and a subsequent enhancement of Rs.10,63,294/- by the CIT(A) on account of Long Term Capital Gains. The assessee is Ritabenn Parshotamdas Patel. The appellant's counsel brought to the court's attention a previous order dated 8.10.2018 passed by the same High Court in Tax Appeal No.1204 of 2018, involving Late Shantaben P. Patel and arising from the same transaction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.13,97,290/- and subsequent enhancement of Rs.10,63,294/- to the addition by the CIT(A) on account of Long Term Capital Gains? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel, argued that the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition. However, the primary submission was to refer to a previous High Court decision in a similar case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/1291/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1291 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 Versus RITABEN PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 19/11/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has challenged the order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’ in ITA No.783/Ahd/2015 for assessment year 2011- 12 by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law:- “Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.13,97,290/- and subsequent enhancement of Rs.10,63,294/- to the addition by the CIT(A) on account of Long Term Capital Gains?”

Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant has very fairly invited the attention of the court to an C/TAXAP/1291/2018 ORDER order dated 8.10.2018 passed by this court in Tax Appeal No.1204 of 2018 in the case of Late Shantaben P. Patel arising out of the same transaction wherein this court has dismissed

the appeal on an identical question of law. The controversy involved in this case, therefore, stands concluded by the above decision.

In the aforesaid premises, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 8.10.2018 passed in Tax Appeal No.1204 of 2018, this appeal also does not give rise to any question of law and is, accordingly, dismissed. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) Z.G. SHAIKH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →