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

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/154/2018HC GujaratGJHC24008498201807 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 question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court dismissed the Tax Appeal. The specific reasoning for dismissing the appeal is that the court found no substantial question of law to be decided. The judgment does not elaborate on the specific findings of the ITAT beyond stating that the addition of Rs. 25,75,000 was deleted by the ITAT on the ground that it was already taxed in the hands of another assessee. The court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's decision or the arguments raised by the Revenue concerning Section 292C or perversity.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated April 12, 2017. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The ITAT's order upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,75,000, which had been confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT's reasoning for deletion was that the amount had already been added in the hands of another assessee. The Revenue has raised specific questions of law for consideration by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse as it has ignored relevant material/evidence and relied on irrelevant material? (Question of law and fact) 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 of law and fact, concerning Section 292C) 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,75,000, so confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,75,000. The Revenue also raised general questions regarding the perversity of the Tribunal's findings and the non-invocation of Section 292C of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/154/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 154 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) 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 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 erred in law and on facts   in   deleting   the   addition   of   Rs.25,75,000/­   so confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)?

First two questions are general in nature. Third and the sole surviving question is substantial in nature and relate to Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/154/2018 ORDER addition   of   Rs.25.75   lacs   made   by   the   Assessing   Officer   but deleted by the CIT(Appeals) which is confirmed by the Tribunal however on slightly different ground. The Tribunal was of the opinion that since such amount is already added in the hands of another assessee, such additions in the present case cannot be sustained.

No question of law arises, Tax Appeal is 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 →