The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad v. Shri Ravjibhai Manilal Patel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 174 of 2022 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 176 of 2022 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),AHMEDABAD VersusSHRI RAVJIBHAI MANILAL PATEL ========================================================== Appearance:M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 14/03/2022 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.These Tax Appeals under Section 260(A) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are at the instance of the Revenueand the Tax Appeal No.174 of 2022 is directed against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Ahmedabad dated 29.09.2021 in the IT (SS) A No.121/Ahd/2018for the A.Y. 2011-12. By way of Tax Appeal No. 176 of 2022, theRevenue has challenged the order dated 29.09.2021 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad in C.O.No.110/Ahd/2019 for A.Y.2011-12. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following questions forconsideration of this Court in both the Appeals: Tax Appeal No.174 of 2022: [A] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition ofRs.2,89,83,750/- without appreciating the fact that theassessee himself admitted involvement in landtransactions and provided the information related to theland sold at Zundal and Chandkheda, and also admittedreceipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission thereon towardsland dealing for Pushkar Corporation, even withoutposing specific question by the department?" [B] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thefact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt ofRs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage duringthe recording of statement as well as the evidences likeDiary having credit and debit entries regarding landtransaction which were basis of admission by theassessee?"in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thefact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt ofRs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage duringthe recording of statement as well as the evidences likeDiary having credit and debit entries regarding landtransaction which were basis of admission by theassessee?" [C] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition ofunaccounted brokerage of Rs.68,00,000/- withoutappreciating that the assessee himself admittedinvolvement of three partners and provided the detailsregarding rate of commission, calculation and details ofsurvey number etc. of the lands in respect of which theunaccounted commission was earned at the time ofgiving his first statement on oath during searchproceedings?"in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition ofunaccounted brokerage of Rs.68,00,000/- withoutappreciating that the assessee himself admittedinvolvement of three partners and provided the detailsregarding rate of commission, calculation and details ofsurvey number etc. of the lands in respect of which theunaccounted commission was earned at the time ofgiving his first statement on oath during searchproceedings?" [D] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the factthat in the statement recorded during the searchproceedings, the admission of receipt of unaccountedbrokerage of Rs.68,00,000/- by the assessee was basedon the diary impounded during the search proceedingsand corroborated by the documentary evidences but theassessee never provided the details of the partners andmerely filed the retraction affidavit without any supportingor cogent evidences?"in law, the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the factthat in the statement recorded during the searchproceedings, the admission of receipt of unaccountedbrokerage of Rs.68,00,000/- by the assessee was basedon the diary impounded during the search proceedingsand corroborated by the documentary evidences but theassessee never provided the details of the partners andmerely filed the retraction affidavit without any supportingor cogent evidences?" [E] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciatethe fact that the assessee remained non compliant duringthe post search proceedings and filed retraction affidavitalmost after 6 months which cannot be accepted as theassessee voluntarily admitted the receipt of Rs.3 croresas commission in the statement recorded u/s.131 of theAct on 13.06.2013?"the fact that the assessee remained non compliant duringthe post search proceedings and filed retraction affidavitalmost after 6 months which cannot be accepted as theassessee voluntarily admitted the receipt of Rs.3 croresas commission in the statement recorded u/s.131 of theAct on 13.06.2013?" [F] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciatethe fact that the assessee filed the retraction affidavitafter a long gap of 6 months without any corroborativeevidences even when the onus was on the assessee toprove that the statement was taken under coercion andwithout his consent?"the fact that the assessee filed the retraction affidavitafter a long gap of 6 months without any corroborativeevidences even when the onus was on the assessee toprove that the statement was taken under coercion andwithout his consent?" Tax Appeal No.176 of 2022 [A] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition ofRs.2,89,83,750/- without appreciating the fact that theassessee himself admitted involvement in landtransactions and provided the information related to theland sold at Zundal and Chandkheda, and also admittedreceipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission thereon towardsland dealing for Pushkar Corporation, even withoutposing specific question by the department?"in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition ofRs.2,89,83,750/- without appreciating the fact that theassessee himself admitted involvement in landtransactions and provided the information related to theland sold at Zundal and Chandkheda, and also admittedreceipt of Rs.3.00 crores as commission thereon towardsland dealing for Pushkar Corporation, even withoutposing specific question by the department?" [B] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thefact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt ofRs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage duringthe recording of statement as well as the evidences likeDiary having credit and debit entries regarding landtransaction which were basis of admission by theassessee?"in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thefact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt ofRs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage duringthe recording of statement as well as the evidences likeDiary having credit and debit entries regarding landtransaction which were basis of admission by theassessee?" [B] "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thefact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt ofRs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage duringthe recording of statement as well as the evidences likeDiary having credit and debit entries regarding landtransaction which were basis of admission by theassessee?"in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thefact that the assessee himself admitted the receipt ofRs.3.00 crores as commission and not brokerage duringthe recording of statement as well as the evidences likeDiary having credit and debit entries regarding landtransaction which were basis of admission by theassessee?" [C] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciatethe fact that the assessee remained non compliant duringthe post search proceedings and filed retraction affidavitalmost after 6 months which cannot be accepted as theassessee voluntarily admitted the receipt of Rs.3 croresthe fact that the assessee remained non compliant duringthe post search proceedings and filed retraction affidavitalmost after 6 months which cannot be accepted as theassessee voluntarily admitted the receipt of Rs.3 crores as commission in the statement recorded u/s.131 of theAct on 13.06.2013?" 3.We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior counselappearing for the Revenue. Essentially, there are two issuesbefore us; one with respect to the CIT(A) deleting the addition ofunaccounted brokerage of Rs.68 Lakh as affirmed by the ITAT andthe second issue is with regard to addition of Rs.3 Crore on thebasis of the statement made by the assessee as recorded underSection 131 of the Act. The statement, however, recorded underSection 131 of the Act, later came to be retracted by theassessee. 4.On both the aforesaid issues or rather to put in other words,on all the proposed questions of law, there are findings of the factrecorded by the Tribunal in its impugned order. 5.We have looked into in the line of reasoning adopted by theTribunal right from para 4.4 or the order till para 11.9, so far as theaddition of Rs.68 Lakh is concerned and from para 17 onwards, sofar as the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 131of the Act is concerned. 6.We are of the view that none the questions as proposed bythe Tribunal to be termed as substantial questions of law. In the result, these Appeal fail and are hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J)