The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Gopal Space Org. P. Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0917-46]

Citation 2020-LL-0917-46
Appellant Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2
Respondent Name Gopal Space Org. P. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/09/2020
Assessment Year 2012-13
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained investment • purchase of land
Bot Summary: The Revenue has proposed the following substantial question of law for the consideration of this Court : Whether the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law and on facts by upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee in purchase of land Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 30 07:57:52 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/208/2020 ORDER The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and affirming the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee, has held as under : The question before us is, whether there is any evidence available on the record proving conclusively that investment was made by the assessee, which has not been reflected in the books of accounts. CIT(A) has recorded a finding that in this year no payment was made by the assessee, and after looking into the chain of evidence flowing from different agreements, civil suits and ultimate resolution of the dispute, we are of the view that in this year, no asset came into existence in the name of the assessee, which requires to be shown in the books of accounts. AO has simply assumed certain facts, and assumed existence of unexplained asset which requires to be added under section 69 of the Act. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two authorities, namely the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, that there is no material on record to prove conclusively that the investment made by the assessee had not been shown in the books of accounts. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, the question proposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 30 07:57:52 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/208/2020 ORDER In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.


C/TAXAP/208/2020 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 208 of 2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus M/S GOPAL SPACE ORG. P. LTD. Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for Appellant(s) No. 1 for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 17/09/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, is at instance of Revenue and is directed against order passed by ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench , Ahmedabad, dated 9th January 2020 in ITA No.1261/Ahd/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-2013. Revenue has proposed following substantial question of law for consideration of this Court : Whether Appellate Tribunal had erred in law and on facts by upholding decision of CIT(A) deleting addition made by Assessing Officer u/s 69 of Act on account of unexplained investment made by assessee in purchase of land ? Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 30 07:57:52 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/208/2020 ORDER Tribunal, while dismissing appeal filed by Revenue and affirming findings recorded by CIT(A) in favour of assessee, has held as under : question before us is, whether there is any evidence available on record proving conclusively that investment was made by assessee, which has not been reflected in books of accounts. ld. CIT(A) has recorded finding that in this year no payment was made by assessee, and after looking into chain of evidence flowing from different agreements, civil suits and ultimate resolution of dispute, we are of view that in this year, no asset came into existence in name of assessee, which requires to be shown in books of accounts. ld. AO has simply assumed certain facts, and assumed existence of unexplained asset which requires to be added under section 69 of Act. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by two authorities, namely CIT(A) as well as Appellate Tribunal, that there is no material on record to prove conclusively that investment made by assessee had not been shown in books of accounts. In view of concurrent findings of fact, question proposed by Revenue cannot be termed as substantial question of law. Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 30 07:57:52 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/208/2020 ORDER In result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ.) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.) /MOINUDDIN/ NAIR SMITA V. Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 30 07:57:52 IST 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Gopal Space Org. P. Ltd
Report Error