Naman V Yagnik Huf v. Appearance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1259 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NOof law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?============================================================================== NAMAN V YAGNIK HUF, PROPRIETOR DARSH ENTERPRISE VersusTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(3)(8), SURAT ============================================================================== Appearance: MR TUSHAR HIMANI WITH MS. VAIBHAVI K PARIKH for the Appellant(s) No. 1MRS KALPANA K RAVAL for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 15/07/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat, in the I.T.A No.2119/AHD/2015 dated 12th January 2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.The appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming addition of Rs.19,23,497/- on account of alleged commission income @ 2% without there being any evidence or material on record for making such estimate ?” 3.For the reasons recorded in the Tax Appeal No.1203 of 2018 decided today, i.e. on 15th July 2019, this Tax Appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The question of law as formulated is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed and set-aside. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.) M.A. SAIYED (A. C. RAO, J.)