Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1 v. Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2019 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1 VersusSHAILESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH ==========================================================Appearance:MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 20/01/2020 ORAL ORDER (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 Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench dated 24.06.2019 in ITA No.2026/Ahd/2016 for A.Y.2013-2014. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law, arising in this Tax Appeal, which reads thus: “(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the decision of Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.2,51,75,891/- without appreciating the evidentiary value of the agreement to sell? C/TAXAP/871/2019 ORDER (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s. 69 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,25,87,945/- without appreciating the corroborative evidence establishing the authenticity of the agreement to sell? (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s. 68 and 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assesssee had raised contradictory and unclear stands? (iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has neither submitted any reply nor given any details regarding source of cash deposited in bank account?” 3.The findings recorded by the Tribunal, as regards the case of Shri Rajubhai Zalabhai Bhadidyadara, are in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order, which reads thus: “10.Wehaveheardtherival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the soft copy found in computer-hard disc of Shri Turmish B. Kaniya, was neither signed, dated nor stamped. Therefore, such document has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is also valid that Shri Turmish B. Kaniya is also not advocate of the assessee nor the land shown in computer printout Satakhat obtained from Shri Turmish B. Kaniya was purchased by the assessee. The original purchase deed filed in respect of said land Revenue Survey No.R.S.No. was actually purchased by Shri Karambhai, brother of the C/TAXAP/871/2019 ORDER “10.Wehaveheardtherival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the soft copy found in computer-hard disc of Shri Turmish B. Kaniya, was neither signed, dated nor stamped. Therefore, such document has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is also valid that Shri Turmish B. Kaniya is also not advocate of the assessee nor the land shown in computer printout Satakhat obtained from Shri Turmish B. Kaniya was purchased by the assessee. The original purchase deed filed in respect of said land Revenue Survey No.R.S.No. was actually purchased by Shri Karambhai, brother of the C/TAXAP/871/2019 ORDER assessee as per purchase agreement dated 02.01.2013 filed before the AO. Therefore, no addition can be made in respectofun-signed,unstamped, Satakhat, which has not been registered and is found from CD of computer of a person who is not connected with the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances and in law, the addition so made by the AO is without any basis, without any corroborating evidences and without allowing due opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee and is therefore, unsustainable in law. The case laws led by the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee are also supports findings of Ld.ICIT(A). In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), accordingly, same is upheld. Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is therefore, dismissed.” 4.It has been fairly pointed out that no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue in the case of Shri Rajubhai Zalabhai Bhadidyadara. It has been further pointed out very fairly that even otherwise, the issues are more factual in nature. 5.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we are convinced that none of the questions, as proposed by the Tribunal, could be termed as the substantial question of law. 6.In the result, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)