The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Damodarbhai Bhimjibhai Patel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 185 of 2022 ==========================================================THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VersusDAMODARBHAI BHIMJIBHAI 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 MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 14/03/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SuratBench, Surat dated 1[st] July 2021 in the IT (SS)A No.52/AHD/2016 forthe assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 (upto 2[nd] December 1999). 2The Revenue has proposed the following questions for theconsideration of this Court: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3,42,912/- on account ofunaccounted household expenditure even though bifurcation ofexpenses included school fees expense, Hotel expense bill clearly reflectthe name of the assessee and there is no nexus between the actualwithdrawal made by the brother of the assessee, Shri Mohan B. Pateland expenses being incurred in the months of October 1999 andNovember 1999. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.83,14,400/- despite categoricallyadmitting during the course of recording of statement on oath thatRs.73,00,000/- (after deduction of expenses) was the unaccountedincome from the Vanita park project and even agreed to pay taxesthereupon and took full responsibility about the ownership of the saidproject.. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.11,89,602/ on account ofunaccounted expenditure related to City Centre project, Surat eventhough the bills of expenditure were found from the premises of theassessee and by making false claim to escape taxation by bringing in thename of a third person i.e. the name 'Damodar' mentioned on the billswas actually Damodarbai Manjibhai Bhavani working as site supervisorat city centre project, (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.91,43,177/ on account ofunaccounted expenditure related to Shiv Ashish Society constructionproject, even though the addition was made on the basis of the seizeddocument found during the course of search operation and was in factexpenditure of the assessee. (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.15,31,575/- on account ofunaccounted investment in land related to Shiv Ashish Societyconstruction project, even though the addition was made on the basis ofthe seized document found during the course of search operation andwas in fact investment of the assessee. (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account ofunaccounted investment in land inspite of the fact that the addition wasmade on the basis of the seized material found during the course ofsearch proceedings and the satakhat was made in the name of theassessee who is one of the purchaser.” 3We have heard Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the Revenue. (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision ofCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account ofunaccounted investment in land inspite of the fact that the addition wasmade on the basis of the seized material found during the course ofsearch proceedings and the satakhat was made in the name of theassessee who is one of the purchaser.” 3We have heard Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the Revenue. 4We are of the view, more particularly, having regard to theobservations made by the Tribunal in its impugned order that all thequestions proposed by the Revenue referred to above are more on facts.None of the questions could be termed as a substantial question of law. 5In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) CHANDRESH (NISHA M. THAKORE,J)