Taxap/379/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Uday D Bhatt

C/TAXAP/379/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 379 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER ================================================================1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?================================================================ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IVVersus UDAY D BHATT ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANTMRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the RESPONDENT =============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANIandHONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 07/01/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1.This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of the common order dated 15.06.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “A” in IT(SS)A No.134/Ahd/2002 and IT(SS)A No.101/Ahd/2003. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.134/Ahd/2002. 2.By an order dated 06.08.2008, this appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions: “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in directing to give benefit of declaration made by the assessee under VDIS ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,64,18,750/- made on account of unexplained investment ? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in reducing the profit on sales of land at Rs.38,85,000/- from Rs.97,12,500/- being assessee's share of 50% of profit ?” 3.Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the respondent. 4.It is an admitted position that the respondent-assessee is identically situated to the assessee in Tax Appeal No.108 of 2008 which arose out of the order passed by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.101/Ahd/2003. As noted earlier both the appeals came to be decided by the Tribunal by a common order dated 15[th] June 2007. By a judgment and order of even date made in Tax Appeal No.108 of 2008, the appeal against the order of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.101/Ahd/2003 has been dismissed by answering the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5.Since identical facts and contentions are involved in the present case, it is not necessary to set out the fact and contentions in detail. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order of even date made in Tax Appeal No.108 of 2008, this appeal is also dismissed. The questions are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) B.U. PARMAR (A. P. THAKER, J)