Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Amitkumar T Patel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 186 of 2019 =============================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusAMITKUMAR T PATEL ============================================= 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 A.C. RAO Date : 25/06/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 18.09.2018 in ITA No. 2883/Ahd/2015/SRT for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following as the substantial questions of law : “(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,76,97,000/- made by the Assessing Officer? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,64,267/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act? (C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,16,579/- made on account of unaccounted bank interest?” 3.We take notice of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has observed as under : “18. On careful consideration of above rival submission, we are of the view that from the assessment order and argument placed before us, we are satisfied that neither the AO nor the ld. DR has controverted the fact that the addition has been made by the AO by treating the amount deposited to the bank account owned by the assessee’s brother Shri Samir Kumar as income of the assessee. In fact, the amount os Rs.8,64,267/- was representing the maturity value of insurance policy of M/s.Baja Alliance Insurance standing in the name of appellant’s brother Shri Samir Kumar therefore, the same was deposited to the account of assessee’s brother and such amount cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act thus, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. We are unable to see any reason to interfere with the same and thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground No.3 of the Revenue is dismissed.” 4.Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is that the Revenue conceded before it that the addition had been made in the hands of the representative bank account holders to which the amount deposited would be made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holders of the accounts. Whereas, another finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is that addition had been made by the AO by treating the amount deposited to the bank account owned by the brother of the assessee namely, Shri Samir Kumar as income of the assessee. 5.Having heard Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that none of the three questions proposed could be termed as the substantial questions of law. In our opinion, no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. 6.In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J)