Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Millennium Park Holdings Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 766 of 2018 ================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2VersusMILLENNIUM PARK HOLDINGS PVT LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR BS SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 26/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT dated 04.08.2017 passed in Appeal No.IT(SS) A No.368/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2007-08, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed questions of law:- “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions in respect of unaccounted payment of Rs.1,72,75,057/- for the purchase of land?[B]Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse as it had failed to C/TAXAP/766/2018 ORDER consider the relevant material in the form of contents of the documents seized during the course of search and seizure, which by no stretch of imagination were dumb documents? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by not appreciating the import of provisions of Section 292C of the Act which raises the presumption regarding the correctness of entries in any DOCUMENTS seized and such presumption is not confined to entries in Books of Account as provided in Section 4 of the Evidence Act? [D] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that income tax proceedings are based on the principles of preponderance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond doubt? [E]Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by not relying on the evidentiary value of the primary documents (which were seized during the course of search and seizure) and wrongfully insistingonfurthercorroborative evidence?” 2. Heard Shri Manish R.Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri B.S.Soparkar, learned Advocate for the respondent. 3.Considering the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT, it appears and it is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of the very assessee, but with respect to earlier Assessment Year. It is reported that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the very assessee, but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year, has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Tax Appeal No.35 of 2018. The aforesaid is not disputed by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 4.Under the circumstances, the issues involved in the present appeal are concluded against the Revenue in view of the binding decision of the Division Bench in the case of the very assessee, but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year in Tax Appeal No.35 of 2018. Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. The present appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) SHITOLE (A.Y. KOGJE, J)