THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI MANILAL PATEL

These Tax Appeals under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are at the instance of the Revenue and the Tax Appeal No.174 of 2022 is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad dated 29.09.2021 in the IT (SS) A No.121/Ahd/2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12. By way of Tax Appeal No. 176 of 2022, the Revenue has challenged the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad in C.O. No.110/Ahd/2019 for A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions for consideration of this Court in both the Appeals: Tax Appeal No.174 of 2022: [A] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and C/TAXAP/174/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2022 in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,89,83,750/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee himself admitted involvement in land transactions and provided the information related to the land sold at Zundal and Chandkheda, and also admitted receipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission thereon towards land dealing for Pushkar Corporation, even without posing specific question by the department?" [B] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage during the recording of statement as well as the evidences like Diary having credit and debit entries regarding land transaction which were basis of admission by the assessee?" [C] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of unaccounted brokerage of Rs.68,00,000/- without appreciating that the assessee himself admitted involvement of three partners and provided the details regarding rate of commission, calculation and details of survey number etc. of the lands in respect of which the unaccounted commission was earned at the time of giving his first statement on oath during search proceedings?" [D] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that in the statement recorded during the search proceedings, the admission of receipt of unaccounted brokerage of Rs.68,00,000/- by the assessee was based on the diary impounded during the search proceedings and corroborated by the documentary evidences but the assessee never provided the details of the partners and merely filed the retraction affidavit without any supporting or cogent evidences?" C/TAXAP/174/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2022 [E] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee remained non compliant during the post search proceedings and filed retraction affidavit almost after 6 months which cannot be accepted as the assessee voluntarily admitted the receipt of Rs.3 crores as commission in the statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act on 13.06.2013?" [F] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee filed the retraction affidavit after a long gap of 6 months without any corroborative evidences even when the onus was on the assessee to prove that the statement was taken under coercion and without his consent?" Tax Appeal No.176 of 2022 [A] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,89,83,750/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee himself admitted involvement in land transactions and provided the information related to the land sold at Zundal and Chandkheda, and also admitted receipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission thereon towards land dealing for Pushkar Corporation, even without posing specific question by the department?" [B] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage during the recording of statement as well as the evidences like Diary having credit and debit entries regarding land transaction which were basis of admission by the assessee?" [C] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee remained non compliant during the post search proceedings and filed retraction affidavit almost after 6 months which cannot be accepted as the assessee voluntarily admitted the receipt of Rs.3 crores C/TAXAP/174/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2022 as commission in the statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act on 13.06.2013?"

We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue. Essentially, there are two issues before us; one with respect to the CIT(A) deleting the addition of unaccounted brokerage of Rs.68 Lakh as affirmed by the ITAT and the second issue is with regard to addition of Rs.3 Crore on the basis of the statement made by the assessee as recorded under Section 131 of the Act. The statement, however, recorded under Section 131 of the Act, later came to be retracted by the assessee.

On both the aforesaid issues or rather to put in other words, on all the proposed questions of law, there are findings of the fact recorded by the Tribunal in its impugned order.

We have looked into in the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal right from para 4.4 or the order till para 11.9, so far as the addition of Rs.68 Lakh is concerned and from para 17 onwards, so far as the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 131 of the Act is concerned.

We are of the view that none the questions as proposed by the Tribunal to be termed as substantial questions of law. In the result, these Appeal fail and are hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Y.N. VYAS