Jyoti v. Jani

C/TAXAP/181/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 181 of 2018 ==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5VersusSHITAL PRIYASHARAN SHAH ==========================================================Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 27/02/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.10.2016 raising following question for our consideration:the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.10.2016 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in not upholding the order passed by Principal CIT under section 263 of the Act, although the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiries and/or without application of mind?” 2. The issue arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 revising the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal wrongly exercised the revisional jurisdiction. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the documents on record, it emerges that the assessee, during the under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 revising the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal wrongly exercised the revisional jurisdiction. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the documents on record, it emerges that the assessee, during the period relevant to the assessment year 2010-11, had made sizeable investments in the shares of one Radhe Developers India Limited. Part of such investment was through borrowed fund. The Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiry with respect to such transaction but made no addition in the income of the assessee. CIT (Appeals) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had not carried out proper inquiries. He had doubted the amount credited in the account of the assessee and wished that the Assessing Officer should have enquired further. 3. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Assessing Officer had taken a particular view which is a plausible view. It was noted that the Investigation Wing of the department also inquired into these transactions and the assessee had given full details of such transactions. Assessee-Sheetal Shah had received fund from M/s. Sheetal Bio Agritech Limited through banking channel which was utilized for investment in the shares of Radhe Developers India Limited.taken a particular view which is a plausible view. It was noted that the Investigation Wing of the department also inquired into these transactions and the assessee had given full details of such transactions. Assessee-Sheetal Shah had received fund from M/s. Sheetal Bio Agritech Limited through banking channel which was utilized for investment in the shares of Radhe Developers India Limited. 4. We find no error in the view of Tribunal. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J.)