The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 v. Ratanlal C Agarwal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 485 of 2018 ================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7VersusRATANLAL C AGARWAL ================================================================ Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 16/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B' passed in IT(SS)A No.328/Ahd./2010 for the Block Period : 01.04.1986 to 21.01.1997, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), reversing the assessing officer’s action making undisclosedincomeof additionof Rs.38,37,600/= to the extent of Rs.35,12,600/= and thereby, confirming the said addition of Rs.3,25,000/= judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B' passed in IT(SS)A No.328/Ahd./2010 for the Block Period : 01.04.1986 to 21.01.1997, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), reversing the assessing officer’s action making undisclosedincomeof additionof Rs.38,37,600/= to the extent of Rs.35,12,600/= and thereby, confirming the said addition of Rs.3,25,000/= only, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law :- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in restricting the decision on account of undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/- out of total addition of Rs.38,37,600/-?” 2. We have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the appellant – Revenue.appearing on behalf of the appellant – Revenue. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the assessee and one – Jashwant K. Patel jointly had made investment in the land. Both of them jointly invested a sum of Rs.6,50,001/=. In the case of Jashwant K. Patel, he was the co-owner. The matter reached the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,25,000/=. Therefore, in the case of the assessee also, considering the same treatment which was given to the said Jashwant K. Patel, the co-owner, the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,25,000/= (being 50% of the amount paid towards purchase of the land of @ Rs.6,50,001/=).dispute that the assessee and one – Jashwant K. Patel jointly had made investment in the land. Both of them jointly invested a sum of Rs.6,50,001/=. In the case of Jashwant K. Patel, he was the co-owner. The matter reached the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,25,000/=. Therefore, in the case of the assessee also, considering the same treatment which was given to the said Jashwant K. Patel, the co-owner, the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,25,000/= (being 50% of the amount paid towards purchase of the land of @ Rs.6,50,001/=). C/TAXAP/485/2018 ORDER C/TAXAP/485/2018 ORDER 4. Therefore, when in the case of the co-owner Jashwant K. Patel where addition was allowed to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/= only and the same treatment is given to the assessee and in the case of the assessee also, addition of Rs.3,25,000/= has been confirmed and the same has been further confirmed by the learned ITAT, it cannot be said that both the CIT (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal has committed any error. Patel where addition was allowed to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/= only and the same treatment is given to the assessee and in the case of the assessee also, addition of Rs.3,25,000/= has been confirmed and the same has been further confirmed by the learned ITAT, it cannot be said that both the CIT (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal has committed any error. 5. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-(M.R. SHAH, J) CAROLINE Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J)