Moinuddin/ Nair Smita v. J. B. Pardiwala, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 208 of 2020 ================================================================THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VersusM/S GOPAL SPACE ORG. P. LTD. ================================================================ Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATHandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 17/09/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed againstthe order passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’,Ahmedabad, dated 9[th]January 2020 in the ITANo.1261/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Revenue has proposed the following substantialquestion of law for the consideration of this Court : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law and onfacts by upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting theaddition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Act onaccount of unexplained investment made by the assessee inpurchase of land ?” The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal filed by theRevenue and affirming the findings recorded by the CIT(A) infavour of the assessee, has held as under : “The question before us is, whether there is any evidenceavailable on the record proving conclusively that investmentwas made by the assessee, which has not been reflected inthe books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded a findingthat in this year no payment was made by the assessee,and after looking into the chain of evidence flowing fromdifferent agreements, civil suits and ultimate resolution ofthe dispute, we are of the view that in this year, no assetcame into existence in the name of the assessee, whichrequires to be shown in the books of accounts. The ld. AOhas simply assumed certain facts, and assumed existenceof unexplained asset which requires to be added undersection 69 of the Act.” Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by thetwo authorities, namely the CIT(A) as well as the AppellateTribunal, that there is no material on record to proveconclusively that the investment made by the assessee had notbeen shown in the books of accounts. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, the questionproposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as a substantialquestion of law. In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ.) /MOINUDDIN/ NAIR SMITA V. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.)