COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. SUVAS HITENDRA BAROT

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/380/2018HC GujaratGJHC24011284201824 April 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that the loose papers found during the search, which formed the basis of the addition, did not contain the assessee's name. Furthermore, statements of representatives of the Bhavya Group recorded during the search denied the contents of the impounded documents. The Tribunal also noted that no action was taken against the Bhavya Group concerning the notices found in these papers. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the papers contained mere notings and did not involve the assessee in any manner. The Tribunal found the issue to be purely factual and that no question of law arose from the AO's order.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated September 15, 2017. The appeal pertains to block assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 95,02,871 to the income of the assessee, Suvas Hitendra Barot, on account of alleged unaccounted investment in the Bhavya Group of entities. The ITAT, however, deleted this addition. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's deletion of this amount.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition made by the AO with respect to unaccounted investment in Bhavya Group amounting to Rs. 95,02,871? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the Tribunal's findings suggest the assessee likely argued that the addition was not justified based on the evidence. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's appeal is based on the premise that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made by the AO. The Revenue likely argued that the AO's addition was based on valid grounds and evidence found during the search.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/380/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 380 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 dated 15.09.2017 raising the following questions of law for our consideration; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition made by the AO with respect to addition on unaccounted investment in Bhavya Group Rs.95,02,871/ ?” 2. The issue arises out of block assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of a sum of Rs.95.02 laks (rounded off) Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/380/2018 ORDER in the hands of the assessee by way of unaccounted investment in one Bhavya Group of entities. The Tribunal, however, held and observed that in the loose papers found during the search, the name of the assessee nowhere appeared. During the search, the statements of the representatives of Bhavya Group were also recorded, who had denied the contents of the documents impounded. The Tribunal noted that against Bhavya Group, in respect of the notice found in such papers, no account was taken. In view of such facts, the Tribunal concluded that the papers merely contained some notings but, in any case, did not involve the assessee. The issue is purely factual in nature. No question of law arises. 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 →