In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Bhagwanbhai Karmanbhai Ajara, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: (C)Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.25,75,000/- so confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)?
Decision: No question of law arises, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
C/TAXAP/154/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 154 of 2018
==========================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2VersusBHAGWANBHAI KARMANBHAI AJARA
==========================================================
Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 07/03/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12.4.2017 raising the following questions for our consideration :
“(A) Whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse as it has ignored the relevant material/evidence and relied on irrelevant material?
(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts by not invoking the provisions of section 292C of the IT Act which raises a presumption that the content of seized documents are true?
(C)Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.25,75,000/- so confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)?
First two questions are general in nature. Third and the sole surviving question is substantial in nature and relate to
addition of Rs.25.75 lacs made by the Assessing Officer but deleted by the CIT(Appeals) which is confirmed by the Tribunal however on slightly different ground. The Tribunal was of the opinion that since such amount is already added in the hands of another assessee, such additions in the present case cannot be sustained.
No question of law arises, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
raghu
(B.N. KARIA, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.