PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3 vs. SAMUKTKARSH CO OP HSG SOCIETY

Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "D" Bench, Ahmedabad dated 29.12.2017 in IT(SS)   A.   No.121/AHD/2010   for   AY   2007­08,   by   which,   the learned  Tribunal  has dismissed  the said Appeal  preferred  by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,39,82,000/­ made by the AO under Section  69 C of the Income  Tax Act, the Revenue  has preferred present   Appeal   to   consider   the   following   proposed   substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,39,82,000/­made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 C of the Income Tax   Act,   1961,   without   considering   the   fact   that   the assessee had failed to prove the nexus for payment made? C/TAXAP/677/2018 ORDER

Heard.   Mrs.   Bhatt,   learned   counsel   for   the   Revenue   and perused the orders passed by the learned AO, learned CIT(A) and learned  ITAT.  At  the  outset,  it is required  to be  noted  that  on appreciation   of   evidence   and   material   on   record,   the   learned Tribunal   as   well   as   learned   CIT(A)   both   have   concluded   that searched  assessee  to have  made  disclosure  of Rs.2  Crores  as its undisclosed   unaccounted   income   and   paid   taxes   which   was including   the   very   sum   in   question   of   Rs.   1,39,82,000/­   in   the assessee's name in the nature of its stock in trade. Therefore, both the   learned   CIT(A)   as   well   as   learned   Tribunal   have   held   the impugned sum to be a case of double addition i.e. both in case of searched  assessee  as well as assessee.  Considering  the aforesaid, when the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,39,82,000/­ made under Section 69 C of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error which call for the interference of this Court. No substantial question of law arise.   Hence,   present   appeal   deserves   to   be   dismissed   and   is