PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 3 vs. NARESHBHAI BALUBHAI SOJITRA

C/TAXAP/438/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 438 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL No. 439 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL No. 440 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL No. 446 of 2018 ============================================================= PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 3 Versus NARESHBHAI BALUBHAI SOJITRA ============================================================= Appearance : Mr NIKUNT RAVAL for Mrs KALPANA K RAVAL, Advocate for the PETITIONER for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 5th May 2018

COMMON ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These appeals involve same assessee and similar question for different assessment years. We may record facts from Tax Appeal No. 438 of 2018, which relates to AY 2007-2008 The respondent-assessee is an individual. He had filed return of income which was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 143 [3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” for short] making minor adjustments in the assessee’s returned income of Rs. Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/438/2018 ORDER 1,02,97,304/=. Later on, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer issued a notice of reopening of assessment on 19th November 2003. The sole ground raised in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment was a transaction of sale of land by the assessee. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the land was sold for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4.72 Crores [rounded off]. The sale proceeds were received by the assessee during the period relevant to the AYs 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. The assessee had not offered such amount for capital gain. The AO, therefore, concluded that he had a reason to believe that the assessee’s income in excess of Rs. 1 lakh had escaped assessment which require verification by reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, assessee challenged the very notice of reopening and also disputed the proposed additions. Assessing Officer having ruled against the assessee, the matter was carried in appeal. Eventually, when the issue reached Tribunal, the Tribunal decided it in favour of the assessee on both counts ie., on the issue of validity of the re- assessment as well as on the merits of additions. With respect Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/438/2018 ORDER to the first issue, the Tribunal was of the opinion that for mere verification, notice of reopening cannot be issued since it would amount to fishing inquiry. On merits also, the Tribunal held that there was no evidence that the assessee had received alleged cash payments. We have perused the orders on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue. In the present case, it is not necessary to comment on the Tribunal’s decision on validity of the notice of reopening, since we find that on merits also, additions were correctly deleted by the Tribunal citing reasons. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence whatsoever of any excess payment having been made to the assessee. The entire issue is factual in nature. No question of law in this regard arise. Tax Appeals are dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash Page 3 of 3