Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Shreeji Developers

C/TAXAP/945/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 945 of 2018 ======================================================================= PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3VersusSHREEJI DEVELOPERS ======================================================================= Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ======================================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 24/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT dated 27.07.2017 passed in IAT No.2870/Ahd/2013 for Assessment Year 2010-11, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed questions of law:- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.4,72,31,590/- on the ground that no material has been brought on record in respect of the assessment made?” 2.The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:- 2.1That survey under Section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts, documents, lose papers, pocket paper, etc. were found and impounded. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 showing total loss of Rs.3,54,637/-. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. That the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,72,31,590/- on account of undisclosed income (on money consideration received by the assessee). The Assessing Officer made the aforesaid addition on the ground that the assessee firm signed in the sale deed as confirming party, which, as such, was between the partners of the assessee firm in their individual capacity. However, on an appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs.4,72,31,590/- observing that when the assessee firm as such was not the party to the transaction and the transaction was in favour of the partners of the assessed firm in their individual capacity and that even there was no addition /similar addition in the hands of the partners, who, as such, were party to the transaction. 2.2On an appeal before the learned ITAT, by the impugned order, the learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue, which has given rise to the present appeal at the instance of the appellant-Revenue. 3.Having heard Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel C/TAXAP/945/2018 ORDER 2.2On an appeal before the learned ITAT, by the impugned order, the learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue, which has given rise to the present appeal at the instance of the appellant-Revenue. 3.Having heard Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel C/TAXAP/945/2018 ORDER appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue and Shri B.S.Soparkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee and the reasonings given by the learned ITAT, more particularly that the assessee firm was merely a confirming party and no consideration was received by the assessee firm with respect to the transaction of transfer of certain lands and that the transaction was in favour of the partners of the firm in their individual capacity and that no similar addition was made in the hands of those partners in their individual accounts and that as such, the addition was made by the Assessing Officer in hands of the assessee as “protective addition”, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the addition of Rs.4,72,31,590/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged on money consideration received by the assessee firm. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. No interference of this Court is called for. 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)