PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 3 vs. RAMESHBHAI HARIBHAI SUTHARIA

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/437/2018HC GujaratGJHC24023489201805 May 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues were purely factual in nature and no question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal had relied on the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT that the impounded material belonged to Ramesh Goyani and not the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) had permitted action against Ramesh Goyani and deleted the additions in the assessee's case. The High Court found no infirmity in this conclusion and therefore dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat 3, is in appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, dated 12th May 2017. The appeal concerns assessment years not specified in the judgment. The ITAT had upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted additions of Rs. 68,75,775/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO's addition was based on documents or books of accounts found in the possession or control of the assessee, Rameshchandra Haribhai Sutaria. The CIT(A) and the ITAT concurrently concluded that the impounded material belonged to one Ramesh Goyani, not the assessee, and directed action against Ramesh Goyani instead.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of addition of Rs. 68,75,775/- made by the AO on the basis of the documents or books of accounts found in the possession or control of the assessee by ignoring the provisions of Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's appeal implicitly argues that the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of the addition, suggesting that the AO's action under Section 292C was justified and the addition should have stood. The Revenue's core argument is that the ITAT wrongly ignored the provisions of Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in deleting the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/437/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 437 of 2018 ============================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 3 Versus RAMESHBHAI HARIBHAI SUTHARIA ============================================================== Appearance : Mr NIKUNT RAVAL for Mrs KALPANAK RAVAL, Advocate for the PETITIONER for the RESPONDENT ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 5th May 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 12th May 2017, raising the following question for our consideration : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of addition of Rs. 68,75,775/= made by the AO on the basis of the documents or books of accounts found in the possession or control of the assessee by ignoring the provisions of Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?” Page 1 of 2

Material on record suggests that the CIT [A] and the Tribunal both concurrently came to a conclusion that the impounded material belonged to one Ramesh Goyani and not the assessee. It was, therefore, that the CIT [A] has permitted taking action against the said Ramesh Goyani and deleted the additions in case of the assessee.

Issues are purely factual in nature. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash

More judgments on Section 292C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →