Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gandhinagar v. Rasikbhai Ramjibhai Raval

C/TAXAP/743/2018 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 743 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ======================================COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR Versus RASIKBHAI RAMJIBHAI RAVAL ======================================Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ======================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 02/07/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0]Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) dated 13/12/2017 in ITA No.1420/Ahd/2014 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting Rs.86,55,134/- being disallowance of 5% of the expenses claimed in trading account and deleting Rs.17,07,145/- being unexplained unsecured loans, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed questions of law; (A)Whether on facts and circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting Rs.86,55,134/- being disallowance of 5% of the expenses claimed in trading account? (B)Whether on facts and circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting Rs.17,07,145/- being unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act? [2.0]We have heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. Now so far as the disallowance of 5% of the expenses claimed in trading account of Rs.86,55,134/- made by the learned Assessing Officer is concerned, it is true that during the assessment proceedings the assessee did not furnish necessary evidence, more particularly, with respect to the amount paid to the Contractors /Labourers. However, before the learned CIT(A) assessee produced relevant evidence /material and the learned CIT(A) called the remand report from the learned Assessing Officer and thereafter having been satisfied with respect to the payment made towards the expenses, learned CIT(A) has deleted Rs.86,55,134/- being disallowance of 5% of the expenses claimed in the trading account and the same has been confirmed by the learned Tribunal. Cogent reasons have been given and there are findings of fact with respect to the expenses claimed by the assessee, which came to be proved by producing evidence before the learned CIT(A) by which the remand report was called, and therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the disallowance of Rs.86,55,134/- made by the learned Assessing Officer of 5% of the expenses claimed in the trading account. No substantial question of law arises. [3.0]Similarly, so far as the proposed question no.(B) i.e. deleting Rs.17,07,145/- being unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is concerned, both the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal have categorically observed that the nomenclature was wrong and it was shown as unsecured loan instead of trade creditors. On facts, it was found that all the persons were as such trade creditors with whom the assessee had done some contract business, including supply of labourers on contractual payments, and therefore, on the aforesaid finding, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. No substantial question of law arises even qua proposed question no.(B). [4.0]In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) siji (A.Y. KOGJE, J.)