C/TAXAP/871/2019 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1 Versus SHAILESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for Appellant(s) No. 1 for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 20/01/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal, under Section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961, is at instance of Revenue and is directed against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench dated 24.06.2019 in ITA No.2026/Ahd/2016 for A.Y.2013-2014. 2. Revenue has proposed following questions as substantial questions of law, arising in this Tax Appeal, which reads thus: (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is right in upholding decision of Ld.CIT(A) deleting addition made u/s. 68 of Act amounting to Rs.2,51,75,891/- without appreciating evidentiary value of agreement to sell? Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 24 10:19:32 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/871/2019 ORDER (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is right in upholding decision of Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition made u/s. 69 of Act amounting to Rs.1,25,87,945/- without appreciating corroborative evidence establishing authenticity of agreement to sell? (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is right in upholding decision of Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition made u/s. 68 and 69 of Act without appreciating fact that assesssee had raised contradictory and unclear stands? (iv) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is right in upholding decision of Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.23,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of Act without appreciating that during course of assessment proceedings assessee has neither submitted any reply nor given any details regarding source of cash deposited in bank account? 3. findings recorded by Tribunal, as regards case of Shri Rajubhai Zalabhai Bhadidyadara, are in paragraph No.10 of impugned order, which reads thus: 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. We find that soft copy found in computer-hard disc of Shri Turmish B. Kaniya, was neither signed, dated nor stamped. Therefore, such document has no evidentiary value in eyes of law. It is also valid that Shri Turmish B. Kaniya is also not advocate of assessee nor land shown in computer printout Satakhat obtained from Shri Turmish B. Kaniya was purchased by assessee. original purchase deed filed in respect of said land Revenue Survey No.R.S.No. was actually purchased by Shri Karambhai, brother of Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 24 10:19:32 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/871/2019 ORDER assessee as per purchase agreement dated 02.01.2013 filed before AO. Therefore, no addition can be made in respect of un-signed, unstamped, Satakhat, which has not been registered and is found from CD of computer of person who is not connected with assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances and in law, addition so made by AO is without any basis, without any corroborating evidences and without allowing due opportunity of cross-examination to assessee and is therefore, unsustainable in law. case laws led by learned Authorized Representative of assessee are also supports findings of Ld.ICIT(A). In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in order of CIT(A), accordingly, same is upheld. Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is therefore, dismissed. 4. It has been fairly pointed out that no appeal has been preferred by Revenue in case of Shri Rajubhai Zalabhai Bhadidyadara. It has been further pointed out very fairly that even otherwise, issues are more factual in nature. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for Revenue and having gone through materials on record, we are convinced that none of questions, as proposed by Tribunal, could be termed as substantial question of law. 6. In result, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 24 10:19:32 IST 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-1 v. Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra Shah