The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gandhinagar v. Raj Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 124 of 2020 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR VersusRAJ CORPORATION ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATHandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 31/08/2020ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This is appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short “the 1961 Act”) at the instance of theRevenue and is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Ahmedabad,dated 25.07.2019 in I.T(SS)A No.359/Ahd/2017. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following questions oflaw for the consideration of this Court : “[A]Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holdingthat addition cannot be made in absence ofincriminating material without appreciating theprovisions of section 153A of the Act which requires thetotal income to be brought under tax without anyrestriction? [B]Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that assessment or reassessment under section 153A isto be restricted only to incriminating materials? [C]Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deletingaddition of Rs.9,33,07,350/- made under section 68 ofthe Act by holding the same to be beyond the scope ofSection 153A of the Act? [D]Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deletingaddition of Rs.58,50,000/- made under section 40A(3)of the Act by holding the same to be beyond the scope ofSection 153A of the Act?” 3.Having heard Ms. Mauna M. Bhatt, the learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the Revenue and having gone throughthe material on record, we are of the view that none of thequestions proposed as referred to above could be termed assubstantial questions of law because this is a caseundisputably of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3)of the Act and being so it fortifies the view taken by theTribunal. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that theTribunal committed any error much less an error of law inpassing the impugned order. 4.In view of the above, this appeal fails and is herebydismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J)