Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 v. Kalyanbhai K. Patel

C/TAXAP/888/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 888 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5VersusKALYANBHAI K. PATEL ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 21/08/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.05.2017 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition of Rs.76,000/- for A.Y. 1995-96 Rs.22,74,000/- in A.Y. 1996-97 and Rs.8,17,191/- for A.Y. 1997-98 on account of undisclosed investment by allowing credit of disclosure made in the firm M/s.Shyam Builders before the Settlement Commission in which the assessee is holding 20% share, although application of the firm before the Settlement Commission was abated u/s. 245HA of the Act? [B]Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and restricted the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of undisclosed investment in Jayesh School Land without considering the fact that the addition was made on the basis of seized material and statement recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act, the same fact was also supported by the civil suit filed by the seller party of the said land against the assessee shown the payment of Rs.5 lakhs? [C]Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and deleting the addition the addition of Rs.25,50,000/- (Rs.8,50,000/- & Rs.17,00,000/-) on account of undisclosed cash credit by considering the peak credit offered before settlement commission in the case of M/s.Shyam Builders although application of the firm before the Settlement Commission was abated u/s.245HA of the Act and no order u/s 245D(4) was passed? [D]Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) by allowing credit of disclosure made in the firm M/s.Shyam construction Co. before the Settlement Commission although application of the firm before the Settlement Commission was abated u/s. 245HA of the Act?” 2.Question-A pertains to additions which were made by the Assessing Officer, confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but, eventually deleted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment on the basis that the undisclosed investment in question were corelatable to the disclosures made by C/TAXAP/888/2018 ORDER the firm in the petition before the Settlement Commissioner. 3.Remaining three issues are totally fact based. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently on facts, came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had wrongly made additions. 4.No substantial question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) ANKIT SHAH (B.N. KARIA, J)