HAJI ISMAIL HAJI SALEMAN BHAYA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

TAXAP/133/2014

AI Insights

The case involves multiple tax appeals by the assessees, Adam Haji Osman Bhaya and others, against the Income Tax Officer, challenging the common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the assessees, which led to the filing of these appeals in the High Court of Gujarat. The main contention was the presence of discrepancies in the calculations made by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. After reviewing the materials and arguments presented, the High Court decided to remand the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamanagar for a fresh assessment, setting aside the previous orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768781 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Tax Appeal Nos. 1181 of 2010 to 1185 of 2010
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRANAV DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; VAIBHAVI PARIKH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Discrepancies; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Remand
• Section: 271(1)(c); 153A; 139(1); 153C

Judgement Text

"O/TAXAP/107/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 107 of 2014 With TAX APPEAL NO. 108 of 2014 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 112 of 2014 With TAX APPEAL NO. 124 of 2014 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 137 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ ADAM HAJI OSMAN BHAYA....Appellant(s) Versus Page 1 of 5 O/TAXAP/107/2014 JUDGMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR TUSHAR P HEMANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 03/12/2014 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of these appeals, the assessees have challenged the common judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot [for short “the Tribunal”] in ITA Nos. 228/Rjt/2012 to 247/Rjt./2012, whereby the appeals preferred by the assessees were dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants- assessees has contended that the present appeals require to be remanded to the competent authority in view of the fact that there are many discrepancies in the calculation made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order and also in the judgment and order of the Tribunal. Page 2 of 5 O/TAXAP/107/2014 JUDGMENT 2.1. In support of his contention, he has drawn our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer, more particularly paragraph.3, which reads as under:- “3. The details of the returns of income filed etc. in the present case is as under:­ AY Returned Income u/s 139(1) (Before search) Returned Income u/s.153C date of filing Income disclosed Addition Male Assessed income Date of Asstt. Order AEO Income liable to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) 2004­05 38,9340/­ 09/10/07 1,10,000 ­­ 1,48,940/­ 13/12/2010 1,10,000/­ 3. Thereafter, he has drawn our attention to the judgment and order of the Tribunal, more particularly paragraph No.1, which reads as under as under:- Sr . No ITA No. Name of the assessee A.Y Income as originall y returned u/s 139 Income as returned u/s. 153A/153 C Finally assesse d income Differenc e between income originall y returned u/s. 139 and income returned u/s/ 153A/153C Penalty levied by AO 1 228/RJT/20 12 Abubakar Esmail Bhaya 2004­05 47270 47270 338570 291300 75570 2 229/RJT/20 12 Adam Osman Bhaya 2004­05 38940 148940 148940 110000 18790 3 230/RJT/20 12 Basir Osman Bhaya 2004­05 50320 150320 150320 100000 19060 4 231/RJT/20 12 Junus Ismail Bhaya 2004­05 47290 157290 157290 110000 21190 5 232/RJT/20 12 Hajraben Osman Bhaya 2004­05 96770 146770 146770 50000 5000 6 233/RJT/20 12 Husain OsmanBhaya 2004­05 29380 129280 129280 100000 14860 7 234/RJT/20 12 Rashid Salemamad Bhaya 2005­06 93500 93500 154200 60700 132560 Page 3 of 5 O/TAXAP/107/2014 JUDGMENT 8 235/RJT/20 12 Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2000­01 48050 148050 148050 100000 20470 9 236/RJT/20 12 Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2001­02 48430 148430 148430 100000 20930 10 237/RJT/20 12 Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2002­03 45220 145220 145220 100000 18410 11 238/RJT/20 12 Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2003­04 44280 194280 194280 150000 33900 11 239/RJT/20 12 Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2004­05 47080 197080 197080 150000 33120 13 240/RJT/20 12 Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2005­06 95190 245190 481290 386100 112560 14 241/Rjt/20 12 Salim Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2004­05 50620 150620 150620 100000 169124 15 242/Rjt/20 12 Salim Ismail Saleman Bhaya 2005­06 102010 202010 1000110 989100 294682 16 243/Rjt/20 12 Osman Saleman Bhaya 2001­02 51000 14100 141000 90000 17100 17 244/Rjt/20 12 Osman Saleman Bhaya 2002­03 33100 143100 143100 110000 17620 18 245/Rjt/20 12 Osman Saleman Bhaya 2003­04 45730 145730 145730 100000 18146 19 246/Rjt/20 12 Osman Saleman Bhaya 2005­06 59810 149810 149810 90000 112136 20 247/Rjt/20 12 Osman Saleman Bhaya 2005­06 107380 147380 147380 40000 800 TOTAL 1181270 3031270 4417470 3236200 1163228 4. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the material on record. Upon perusal of the record, we find substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants-assessees that there are many discrepancies in the calculation made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order and also in the judgment and order of the Tribunal. Hence, the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellants is required to be accepted. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and also the decision taken by this Court Page 4 of 5 O/TAXAP/107/2014 JUDGMENT today itself in Tax Appeal Nos. 1181 of 2010 to 1185 of 2010, the present appeals deserve to be remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamanagar for deciding the matters afresh. 6. Accordingly, all these appeals are remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamanagar for deciding the matters afresh. The orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamanagar as well as the order of the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) pawan Page 5 of 5 "