COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MARWAR HOTELS LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/109/2012HC GujaratGJHC24022676201219 July 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in deleting both additions. Regarding the Rs. 10,00,000 addition, the Tribunal found that it was made solely on the basis of Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat's statement, and no other documentary evidence was seized. The assessee had explained the matter to the AO, stating that the amount was not paid to Mr. P.G. Parikh and was properly accounted for in the books. Therefore, the addition was not justified. Concerning the Rs. 20,00,000 addition, the Tribunal noted that additions for block assessment must be based on material or evidence found during a search or other available information. The AO made this addition based on a proposed/draft agreement that was never acted upon, which the Tribunal found insufficient for making an addition. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning and found no substantial question of law arising from the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, filed a Tax Appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to the assessment of Marwar Hotels Ltd. The ITAT had deleted two additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO): Rs. 10,00,000 on account of unaccounted payment as undisclosed income under Section 69C, and Rs. 20,00,000 on account of unexplained expenditure for the purchase of land at Jodhpur. The AO's addition of Rs. 10,00,000 was based on a statement from Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat. The addition of Rs. 20,00,000 was based on a proposed/draft agreement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of unaccounted payment as undisclosed income of the assessee under Section 69C? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 on account of unexplained expenditure incurred on purchase of land at Jodhpur for Marwar Hotels Projects? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in deleting the additions. For the Rs. 10,00,000 addition, the AO relied on the statement of Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat. For the Rs. 20,00,000 addition, the AO relied on a proposed/draft agreement for the purchase of land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TAXAP/109/2012 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 109 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Sd/- ====================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ====================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant Versus MARWAR HOTELS LTD – Opponent ====================================== Appearance : MR M R BHATT, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant. None for Opponent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

TAXAP/109/2012 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 19/07/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 2. This Tax Appeal has been filed on the following two proposed questions of law :- “[A] Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unaccounted payment as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s. 69C ? [B] Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure incurred on purchase of land at Jodhpur for Marwar Hotels Projects ?” 3. So far as the first question is concerned, addition of Rs.10 Lacs was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement recorded during the search given by Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat who stated that he has given Rs.10 Lacs to one Mr. P.G. Parikh as brokerage for arranging NRI fund in the month of February, 1995. On that basis, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.10 Lacs for the block period.

TAXAP/109/2012 3/4 JUDGMENT In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the addition was made solely on the basis of statement given by Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat. No other document was seized during the search and the statement of Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat was explained by the assessee even before the Assessing Officer on the basis of the provisions made addition in the Books of accounts. He has further stated before the Assessing Officer that he never received Rs.10 Lacs from Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the amount was not paid to Mr. P.G. Parikh and it was properly explained by the assessee in his books of accounts, therefore, the addition of Rs.10 Lacs made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. 4. So far as the second question about addition of Rs.20 Lacs for the block period is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that for the block assessment, additions could be made on the basis of the material or evidence found during the course of search or other documents or material or information available with the Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence. In this case, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.20 Lacs on the basis of proposed/draft agreement which was never acted upon. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that only on the basis of proposed/draft agreement, addition of Rs.20 Lacs could not be made. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error. Further, we

TAXAP/109/2012 4/4 JUDGMENT do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law, arising in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/- [N. V. ANJARIA, J.] Savariya

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →