Mahendrakumar Jayntilal Shah, Vadodara V. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat At- Vadodara

ITA 139/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Shah against the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat at Vadodara, which were passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These orders were related to the reassessment of income for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 following a search and seizure operation. The reassessment revealed unaccounted cash received by the appellant from a partnership firm, which was treated as long-term capital gain. However, the appellant opted for settlement under the DTVSV, and the Tribunal found that similar issues in a co-owner's case were resolved under the same scheme, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125047 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Shah vs. PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 263; 143(3); 153A; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I. T. A. Nos. 139 & 140 /Ahd/2022 ( नधा रण वष / A ss es sment Years : 2014 -1 5 & 20 15-16) Ma he nd r ak u m a r Ja y a nt i la l Sh a h 9- M, S oli ta ir e -9 , N ea r D ar s h an an m 99 , Sa ma Sa vli R oa d, V e m al i , V a do da r a बनाम/ Vs . PC I T ( Ce nt r a l ) S u r at a t V a do da r a थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N/ G I R N o . : A FO P S 8 2 9 2 K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) . . ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Ms. Mira Khatri, AR यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. D.R. स ु नवाई क तार ख / D a t e o f H e a r i ng 05/07/2023 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P ro n o u nc e me n t 07/07/2023 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat AT Vadodara (in short ‘PCIT’) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out ITA Nos. 139 & 140/Ahd/2022 (Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Shah vs. PCIT) A.Ys.– 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 2 - of the orders both dated 27.12.2019 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. 2. Since both the appeals filed by the same assessee these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.139/Ahd/2022 – A.Y. 2014-15 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 4. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant has filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 24.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs.2,75,48,810/-. Subsequently, search and seizure action was carried out in ‘Hathee & Ananta Group’ of Vadodara on 31.01.2018 and the case of the appellant was found to be covered in search and seizure action. Consequently, re-assessment under Section 153A of the Act was conducted during which it was found by the Ld. AO that the appellant jointly alongwith Jayantibhai Shamalbhai Patel and Shri Sureshchandra J. Shah owned property lying and situated at Moje Khatamba in the Sub-District of Vadodara bearing old R.S. No. 295, Block No. 215/A, 215/B and 215/C having share of 50%, 25% & 25%; respectively. The land being non-agricultural used for construction of the project of Ananta Shubh Labh executed by the partnership firm M/s. Shubh Labh Homes at Waghodiya, Vadodara wherein the appellant alongwith other two co-owners signed a development agreement with the said ITA Nos. 139 & 140/Ahd/2022 (Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Shah vs. PCIT) A.Ys.– 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 3 - firm. As the appellant received unaccounted cash amount of Rs.1,19,06,250/- from the said firm during the year under consideration, which was neither disclosed in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the same was, therefore, treated as long term capital gain under Section 45 of the Act and added to the total income of the appellant for the year under consideration by the Ld. AO. During the appellate proceeding, the appellant had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (‘DTVSV’) against the order passed by the Ld. AO and the Ld. PCIT has already issued Form No.5 towards full and final settlement. On this aspect, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant has drew our attention at Page No. 118 of paper book filed before us. 5. At the very outset of the proceeding, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the similar issue arisen in the case of co- owner M/s. Jayantibhai Shamalbhai Patel in ITA Nos. 141 & 142/Ahd/2022 was taken up by the Co-ordinate Bench had decided the same holding that since the matter has been settled by the DTVSV Act, revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 31.05.2023, copy whereof has been submitted before us by the Ld. AR. In that view of the matter, he prays for quashing of the order impugned passed under Section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT. Such submission made by the Ld. AR has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. 6. Having heard to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in identical issue, we find no justification in deviating the ITA Nos. 139 & 140/Ahd/2022 (Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Shah vs. PCIT) A.Ys.– 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 4 - stand taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, respectfully relying upon the same we quash the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT in both matters. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. 8. The decision in ITA No. 139/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 shall also apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No. 140/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. 9. In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed. This Order pronounced on 07/07/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/07/2023 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं%धत आयकर आय ु 'त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु 'त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. *वभागीय -त-न%ध, आयकर अपील य अ%धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड3 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील$य अ%धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad