THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. RATANLAL C AGARWAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal had not committed any error in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Court noted that the assessee and Jashwant K. Patel jointly invested Rs.6,50,001/- in land. In the case of Jashwant K. Patel, the co-owner, the CIT(Appeals) had confirmed an addition of Rs.3,25,000/-. Following the same treatment for the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed an addition of Rs.3,25,000/-. This decision was further confirmed by the ITAT. Therefore, the High Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B', for the Block Period 01.04.1986 to 21.01.1997. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) had reduced an addition of Rs.38,37,600/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to Rs.3,25,000/-. The dispute arises from an investment in land made jointly by the assessee, Ratanlal C. Agarwal, and one Jashwant K. Patel, with a total investment of Rs.6,50,001/-. The AO had made an addition of Rs.38,37,600/-. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed an addition of Rs.3,25,000/- to the assessee's income.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in restricting the decision on account of undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/- out of a total addition of Rs.38,37,600/-. The Revenue contends that the Tribunal erred in restricting the addition. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment notes that the assessee and Jashwant K. Patel jointly invested Rs.6,50,001/- in land. In the case of Jashwant K. Patel, who was a co-owner, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed an addition of Rs.3,25,000/-. The CIT(Appeals) applied the same treatment to the assessee, confirming an addition of Rs.3,25,000/- (being 50% of the amount paid towards the purchase of the land). The ITAT confirmed this decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
None mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/485/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 485 of 2018 ================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 Versus RATANLAL C AGARWAL ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 16/07/2018
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B' passed in IT(SS)A No.328/Ahd./2010 for the Block Period : 01.04.1986 to 21.01.1997, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), reversing the assessing officer’s action making undisclosed
income
of addition
of Rs.38,37,600/= to the extent of Rs.35,12,600/= and thereby, confirming the said addition of Rs.3,25,000/= Page 1 of 3
C/TAXAP/485/2018 ORDER only, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law :- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in restricting the decision on account of undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/- out of total addition of Rs.38,37,600/-?” 2. We have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the appellant – Revenue. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the assessee and one – Jashwant K. Patel jointly had made investment in the land. Both of them jointly invested a sum of Rs.6,50,001/=. In the case of Jashwant K. Patel, he was the co-owner. The matter reached the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,25,000/=. Therefore, in the case of the assessee also, considering the same treatment which was given to the said Jashwant K. Patel, the co-owner, the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,25,000/= (being 50% of the amount paid towards purchase of the land of @ Rs.6,50,001/=). Page 2 of 3
C/TAXAP/485/2018 ORDER 4. Therefore, when in the case of the co-owner Jashwant K. Patel where addition was allowed to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/= only and the same treatment is given to the assessee and in the case of the assessee also, addition of Rs.3,25,000/= has been confirmed and the same has been further confirmed by the learned ITAT, it cannot be said that both the CIT (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal has committed any error. 5. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (M.R. SHAH, J) Sd/- (A.Y. KOGJE, J) CAROLINE Page 3 of 3
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
