THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. BHAGWANBHAI KARMANBHAI AJARA

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/151/2018HC GujaratGJHC24008495201807 March 2018Bench: 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 no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the issues were based on concurrent findings of fact by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Court perused the orders on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue. The judgment does not detail the reasoning for each specific issue (A to E) but concludes that the appeals do not present any question of law. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were deleted by the lower appellate authorities, were not disturbed. The operative direction was to dismiss the tax appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated April 12, 2017. The appeals concern Assessment Year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the ITAT's order. The ITAT's decision is under challenge. The procedural history involves the Assessing Officer making additions, which were then deleted by the CIT(Appeals) and subsequently upheld by the ITAT. The Revenue's appeals to the High Court raise several questions of law and fact regarding these deletions. The amounts in dispute are Rs. 5,87,250/-, Rs. 46,91,750/-, and Rs. 15,00,000/-, related to unaccounted interest income, peak credit from a seized diary, and Nicol land transaction receipts respectively.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law and fact: 1. Whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse as it has ignored relevant material/evidence and relied on irrelevant material (Question A)? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts by not invoking the provisions of Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, which raises a presumption that the content of seized documents are true (Question B)? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,87,250/- made by the Assessing Officer as unaccounted interest income (Question C)? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,91,750/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of peak credit mentioned in the impounded seized diary, by not appreciating that these did not relate to USCKP but were related to the personal money lending business of the assessee (Question D)? 5. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- being amount received during the year from Nicol land transaction recorded in the diaries seized from the residence of the assessee (Question E)? Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's findings were perverse, that Section 292C should have been invoked, and that the deletions of additions related to unaccounted interest income, peak credit from a seized diary, and Nicol land transaction receipts were erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/151/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 151 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 152 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 153 of 2018 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus BHAGWANBHAI KARMANBHAI AJARA ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 07/03/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Issues are common in all the appeals. We may refer to facts from Tax Appeal No.151/2018.

Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   dated   12.4.2017   raising   the   following questions for our consideration : “(A)   Whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse as it has ignored the relevant material/evidence and relied on irrelevant material? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/151/2018 ORDER facts by not invoking the provisions of section 292C of the IT   Act   which   raises   a   presumption   that   the   content   of seized documents are true? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,87,250/­ made by Assessing Officer as unaccounted interest income? (D)  Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.46,91,750/­ made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of peak credit mentioned in the impounded seized diary by not appreciating that these   did   not   relate   to   USCKP   but   were   related   to   the personal money lending business of the assessee? (E)  Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/­ being amount   received   during   the   year   from   Nicol   land transaction   recorded   in   the   diaries   seized   from   the residence of the assessee?”

First   two   questions   are   general   in   nature.   Substantial questions are C, D and E. We have perused the orders on record with the assistance of the learned counsel fro the Revenue and noticed that the issues are based on concurrent findings of fact by CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal.

No question of law arises, Tax Appeals are dismissed.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (B.N. KARIA, J.) raghu

Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 292C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →