COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. SUVAS HITENDRA BAROT

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/372/2018HC GujaratGJHC24011286201824 April 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 noted that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently concluded that the materials on record did not establish any unaccounted investments by the assessee in the three properties. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate authorities, if not based on any perversity or misinterpretation of law, do not give rise to a substantial question of law for the High Court to interfere. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerns alleged unaccounted investments made by the assessee, Suvas Hitendra Barot, in three separate immovable properties: New York Tower, Somvilla, and Mansi Complex. The ITAT had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of these investments. The Assessing Officer's additions were Rs. 18,50,000 for New York Tower, Rs. 22,50,000 for Somvilla, and Rs. 38,96,757 for Mansi Complex. The CIT(A) and the ITAT concurrently found that the seized material did not establish any unaccounted investments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts by not considering the seized material and deleting the addition of Rs. 18,50,000 in respect of unaccounted investment in New York Tower? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts by not considering the seized material and deleting the addition of Rs. 22,50,000 in respect of unaccounted investment in Somvilla? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts by not considering the seized material and deleting the addition of Rs. 38,96,757 in respect of unaccounted investment in Mansi Complex? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's conclusion, as stated in the judgment, was that the materials on record did not establish any unaccounted investments. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's argument, as reflected in the questions of law, is that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts by not considering the seized material and consequently deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning the alleged unaccounted investments in the three properties.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/372/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 372 of 2018 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR Versus SUVAS HITENDRA BAROT ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 24/04/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following question of law for our consideration; (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not considering the seized material and deleting the addition in respect   of   unaccounted   investment   of Rs.18,50,000/­ in respect of New York Tower ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not considering the seized material and deleting the addition in respect of unaccounted investment in Somvilla amounting to Rs.22,50,000/­ ? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not considering the seized material and deleting the addition in Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/372/2018 ORDER respect   of   unaccounted   investment   in   Mansi Complex amounting to Rs.38,96,757/­ ? 2. The issue pertains to the alleged unaccounted investment   by   the   assessee   in   three   separate immovable properties. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal concurrently   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the materials on record did not establish any such unaccounted   investments.   No   question   of   law arises. Hence, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →