Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/109/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 109 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-III - Appellant(s)
Versus
CHUNIBHAI
REVABHAI PATEL - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 15/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The
Commissioner of Income Tax-III, has filed this Tax Appeal under
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a block period
commencing from 1988-1989 to 1997-1998 proposing to formulate the
following substantial questions of law for determination and
consideration of this Court.
(A) Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts and confirming
the order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of
Rs.10,28,251/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of
unexplained cash credit in the capital account of the assessee ?
(B) Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming
the order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of
Rs.7,57,350/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of
unexplained cash credit ?
2. Heard
Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs. Mauna
M. Bhatt, Standing Counsel for the Revenue and perused the orders
passed by the authority below. The issues raised by the assessee are
on account of unexplained cash credit in capital account of the
assessee; and on account of unexplained cash credit, both these
additions were deleted by the CIT (Appeal) and the order of the CIT
(Appeal) on these two issues was confirmed by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal in its order has at length discussed this issue and recorded
that there was no dispute that the assessee owned 35 bigas of
agricultural land in District Mehsana. It was also admitted in a
statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act that the
assessee earned agricultural income of Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/-
per annum and if such income per annum is accepted as agricultural
income from 35 bighas of agricultural land then the opening balance
as on 31.03.1988 at Rs.5,46,000/- is to be accepted and income of
Rs.4,50,000/- for the block period is to be accepted. This submission
made on behalf of the assessee was found favour by the CIT (Appeal)
as well as the Tribunal. The findings arrived at by both the
authorities are based on the findings of fact. We do not see any
justification in holding that Question No.1 hereinabove can be
considered to be a substantial question of law.
3. With
regard to Question No.(B), both the authorities have found that there
was adequate evidence on record and hence no addition can be made on
account of unexplained cash credit. In para-6 of the order of the
Tribunal, it was recorded that all the confirmations were filed. It
was found by the Tribunal that the said parties have given money to
the assessee and that the loans have been repaid. All persons owned
agricultural land as well as buffalos for supply of milk. All the
depositors are relatives of the assessee and all the three
ingredients regarding establishment of cash credit are satisfied in
the present case. Hence, both the authorities were justified in
deleting the addition of Rs.7,57,350/- on account of unexplained cash
credit. This being finding of fact, no substantial question of law
arises out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, summarily
dismiss this Tax Appeal.
(K.A.
Puj,J.) (Rajesh H. Shukla,J.)
rakesh/
Top