Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 v. Samuktkarsh Co Op Hsg Society

C/TAXAP/677/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 677 of 2018 ============================================= PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3VersusSAMUKTKARSH CO OP HSG SOCIETY ============================================= Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1=============================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 27/06/2018ORAL ORDER (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 "D" Bench, Ahmedabad dated 29.12.2017 in IT(SS) A. No.121/AHD/2010 for AY 2007-08, 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) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,39,82,000/- made by the AO under Section 69 C of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue has preferred present Appeal to consider the following proposed substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,39,82,000/-made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the nexus for payment made? 2.0.Heard. Mrs. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the orders passed by the learned AO, learned CIT(A) and learned ITAT. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence and material on record, the learned Tribunal as well as learned CIT(A) both have concluded that searched assessee to have made disclosure of Rs.2 Crores as its undisclosed unaccounted income and paid taxes which was including the very sum in question of Rs. 1,39,82,000/- in the assessee's name in the nature of its stock in trade. Therefore, both the learned CIT(A) as well as learned Tribunal have held the impugned sum to be a case of double addition i.e. both in case of searched assessee as well as assessee. Considering the aforesaid, when the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,39,82,000/- made under Section 69 C of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error which call for the interference of this Court. No substantial question of law arise. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD (A.Y. KOGJE, J)