The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara 1 v. Prahladray M Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 186 of 2021 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 1 Versus PRAHLADRAY M SHAH ==========================================================Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANIand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN Date : 08/09/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1.Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2020passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘theITAT’ for short) in an Appeal being ITANo.1791/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, the appellant has approached this Court withthe following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the learned ITAThas erred in law and in facts in deleting theaddition made on account of non-operativefinance of Rs.1,20,000/- without appreciatingthe facts that in absence of any details filedby the assessee, the Assessing Officer had nooption but to come to the conclusion ofaddition of the same, since cheque returned/dishonoured appearing in the bank accountsof the assessee represented non operativeadvances, in which cases u/s 138 of theN.I.Act have been filed and is distinct fromthe addition made on the basis of cheque credits representing operative advances? (b)Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, learned ITAT has erred in law andon facts in relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench dated 30.01.2018 in ITANo.1758 to 1796/Ahd/2015 for the A.Ys.1998-99 to 2003-04, which has been quashedand set aside by this Hon’ble Court by orderdated 16.07.2019 in Tax Appeal No.47 of2019 and other connected appeals?” 2. We have heard the learned standing counsel,Mr.Varun Patel appearing for the appellant. Heconfirms that the very issues of addition made onaccount of non-operative and revealation of variouscases under the Negotiable Instruments Act financeis already challenged in other appeals. We havenoticed that the tax effect involved in the appeal ofAssessment Year 2001-2002 is Rs.2805/-. An attemptis made to take recourse to the CBDT Circular No.17of 2019 dated 09.08.2019. 3. Without entering into the merits and keepingthe legal issue alive to be decided in appropriatecase, this Tax Appeal is dismissed and disposed ofonly on the ground of the monetary aspect. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J)