AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad against Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 78,52,200 as unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the Assessing Officer had made following a search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, finding no incriminating material to support them, a decision which the Tribunal upheld. The Tribunal noted that the additions were made in an unabated assessment and no new incriminating evidence was found post-search, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302871 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-08-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
13-08-2023
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
02-05-2023
Judgement Text
IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH,AHMEDABAD Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Th e Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ro o m No. 303 , 3 r d Floor, Aayakar Bhavan , Ashram Road, Ah medabad -3 80009 , Gujarat (Appellant) v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbh ai Shah, Plot No. 2219, C-3, Kalyan Op p. Swapnil Flat, Hilldrive Road, Nr. Fulwadi Chowk, Bhavn agar-36 4002, Gujarat PAN:B ADPS1904 D (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : CA Shri Mo hit Balani, A. R. Revenue by : Shri Kamlesh Makw ana, CIT-D. R . Date of hearing : 14-08 -2 023 Date of pronouncement : 18-08 -2 023 आदेश/ORDER PER : RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal in IT(SS)A No. 40/Ahd/2023 for Assessment Year 2017- 18 arises from the appellate order dated 24-02-2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11,Ahmedabad(hereinafter called “ the CIT(A)”) in Appeal No. CIT(A), Ahmedabad-11/11124/2016-17 u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) , the appellate IT(SS)A No. 40/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year:2017-18 IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 2 proceedings before ld. CIT(A) had arisen from assessment order dated 27.09.2021 passed by learned Assessing Officer(hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b) of the 1961 Act(DIN No. ITBA/AST/M/153A/2021-22/1035914669(1). 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 40/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18), reads as under:- Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of Appeal i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee by holding that no incriminating materials were found with regard to the issue on which additions were made in the assessment order because an SLP on this issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court?" NA ii. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 78,52,200/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans on technical ground, rather than going to the merits of the case'. Rs.60,65,824/- iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A'O' NA IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 3 NA iv. It is , therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. Total tax effect Rs.60,65,824/- 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was originally filed by the assessee on 31 st March, 2018 belatedly u/s. 139(4) of the Act, declaring total income at Rs. 2,74,180/-. The said return of income was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The search and seizure action were conducted by Revenue u/s. 132 of the Act on ‘Priya Blue Group’ on 19-11-2019 in which the premises of assessee were also covered. Notice u/s. 153A of the Act issued by AO to the assessee, on 11-01-2021. In response thereof, the assessee filed return of income u/s. 153A on 12 th July, 2021 , declaring total income of Rs. 2,75,823/-. The AO also issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act, to the assessee. The assesse duly participated in assessment proceedings , and submitted the details required by the AO. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed on perusal of the ITR for the year under consideration filed by the assesse that the assessee has received unsecured loans from various parties to the tune of Rs. 78,52,200/-. The assessee was asked by AO to furnish the details of the persons/entities from whom funds/loans have been received, evidences regarding their identity of persons, evidences as to genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans. The assessee submitted before AO that IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 4 the loans amounting to Rs.78,52,200/- are old loans which has been carried forward from ay: 2017-18 to 2019-20 , and that she has not received any new loans till ay:2019-20. The Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee on the ground that confirmation of loans submitted by the assessee were unsigned, and thus non-genuine. The PAN of the creditors are not mentioned in the confirmations filed by the assesse. The AO observed that the assesse has failed to satisfactorily establish genuineness of transactions and the identity of the creditors. The AO further observed that the assesse has not submitted any other supportive documents such as bank statements , ITR of the parties etc. to establish creditworthiness of the payer. The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee has never disclosed any such old balance prior to assessment year:2017-18 in her return of income filed by the assesse with Revenue. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 78,52,200/- to the income of the assesse, vide assessment order dated 27 th September, 2021 passed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Act. The AO also directed the tax to be computed as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the 1961 Act. 4.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A). The main bone of the contention of the assesse before ld. CIT(A) is that there was no incriminating documents found during the course of search conducted by Revenue. It was also submitted by assesse before ld. CIT(A) that in the Panchnama prepared during search, it has been observed that no books of accounts were found. It was also submitted that these loans amounting to Rs. 78,52,200/- for which additions were made by the AO in the hands of the assesse were old IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 5 5 loans, and no fresh loans were raised by the assesse during the year under consideration. The assessee relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Saumya Construction P. Ltd. (2016) 95 CCH 0335(Guj. HC). The assessee also relied upon judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Devangi Alias Rupa (2017) 98 CCH 0051(Guj.HC) and also on judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipak Jashwantlal Panchal (2017) 98 CCH 0407 ; (2017) 397 ITR 0153 (Gui HC). 4.2 On merits of the additions made by the AO, the assesse submitted that no loans were received during the year under consideration , and these were old loans being carried forward from earlier years. It was submitted by assesse before ld. CIT(A) that the assesse duly submitted details of the loans being received in earlier years, but the AO erred in making additions u/s 68 as no fresh loans were received during the year under consideration. It was submitted that no additions are warranted in the year under consideration. The assessee also submitted that ledger account of such lenders were produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings , that the assessee has received loans from three parties i.e. (a) Shiv Pooja Construction-Rs. 75,00,0000, (b) J. N. Shah-Rs. 1,50,000/- , and (c) Ranjanben-Rs. 2,02,000/-. The assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) that after perusal of the ledger account it can be seen that the money was lent to the assessee in the preceding years , and no fresh loans were received during the year under consideration. It was submitted that Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked in such cases because no money has been credited during the year under consideration. The assessee relied upon the judgment and IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 6 6 order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi-VI v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., reported in (2009) 183 Taxman 277 (Delhi). The assessee , as an alternative plea, also filed additional evidence before ld. CIT(A) to prove identity of the lenders , genuineness of the borrowings as well as to prove creditworthiness of lenders , and the following documents were filed as an additional evidences, before ld. CIT(A):- Party Name Proofs Page No. Shiv Pooja Constructions Loan of Rs. 75 Lakhs Ledger A/c 16-23 Confirmation 1-11 ITR & Confirmation 12-14 Copy of Bank Statement 24-26 Jayendrabhai Natwarlal Shah Loan of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs Ledger A/c 27-34 Confirmation 27-34 ITR & Computation 35-37 Ranjan Ben Loan of Rs. 2.02 Lakhs Ledger and Confirmation 38-46 Thus, the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) that on perusal of the evidences filed by the assessee, it can be seen that section 68 ingredients are satisfied as the assessee has filed copy of ITR, as well as name and addresses of the lenders which establishes that the lenders holds a PAN and are a living persons assessable with department . The assessee submitted that copies of confirmations were submitted which proves that the lenders have IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 7 7 lent money to the assesse. The assesse submitted that transactions have been carried through banking channel and the genuineness of transaction could not be doubted. The assessee submitted that copies of bank statements were submitted , which establishes that the lenders have sufficient money to lend which proves creditworthiness of the lenders. The assessee also filed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee relied upon judgment and order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (231 ITR 1) (Bom), and judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Text Hundred India Private Limited 351 ITR (Delhi) ; in ITA Nos.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010, dated 14.01.2011. 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the contentions of the assessee deleted the additions as were made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 78,52,200/- with respect to unsecured loans raised by the assessee from various parties by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act, by holding the said additions to be beyond the scope of Section 153A of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assesse duly filed return of income belatedly on 31.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,74,180/-. The search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted by Revenue on 19 th November, 2019 in the case of ‘Priya Blue Group’, and the assessee’s premises were also covered. It was observed by ld. CIT(A) that on the date of search ON 19.11.2019, the time limit for issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2017-18 has expired which means that the present assessment year is an unabated assessment for the purpose of IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 8 8 making assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that addition has been made without any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that no live nexus with the incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of the assessee was established by the Assessing Officer related to the additions. The ld. CIT(A) referred to judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj HC) ; also judgment and order in the case of CIT-III v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxmann.com 412 and also judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Anil Bholabhai Patel , dated 30-08-2017 Tax Appeal No. 469 of 2017. The ld. CIT(A) also referred two other judgments and orders of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT v. Devangi Alias Rupa, reported in (2017) 98 CCH 0051 (Guj HC) and in the case of PCIT v. Dipak Jashwantlal Panchal, reported in (2017) 98 CCH 0404(Guj HC) . Thus, the ld. CIT(A) held that the additions as were made by AO u/s 68 of the 1961 Act are not sustainable as the same are beyond the scope of Section 153A of the Act, which additions stood deleted by ld. CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 24.02.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A). 5.1 Now, it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) , and Revenue has now filed this second appeal with the Tribunal. The ld. CIT-DR opened arguments before the Bench , and submitted that there was a search and seizure operations conducted by Revenue u/s. 132 of the Act on 19 th November, 2019 in the case of ‘Priya Blue Group’ in which premises of the assessee was also covered. It was submitted that assessment proceedings u/s 153A consequent to search u/s IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 9 9 132 were initiated by Revenue against the assesse . It was fairly submitted by ld. CIT-DR that the original assessment for the impugned assessment year is an unabated assessment. It was also submitted by ld. CIT-DR that the assessee has raised unsecured loans of Rs. 78,52,200/- which came to the notice of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings conducted by the AO u/s 153A of the 1961 Act, as the assesse never disclosed these unsecured loans in the return of income filed with the department for the preceding years. It was also submitted by ld. CIT-DR that no details of these unsecured loans were submitted before the Assessing Officer by the assessee. The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that it is true that no incriminating material was found during the course of search w.r.t. these unsecured loans raised by the assesse. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Saumya Constructions(supra) , and gave relief to the assesse on the grounds that no incriminating material was found during the course of search and hence no additions can be sustained. It was submitted by ld. CIT DR that assessee has not taken any such objection before the Assessing Officer that since no incriminating material was found during search operations, and hence no additions could be made. Similarly, it was submitted that no grounds of appeal were raised by the assesse before the ld. CIT(A) in Form No. 35 filed with department , that since no incriminating material was found during the course of search and hence no additions could be made in the assessment proceedings conducted u/s 153A pursuant to search . The ld. CIT-DR submitted that this ground of appeal that since no incriminating material was found during search and hence no additions could be made was taken for the first time before ITAT. IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 10 10 The ld. CIT DR prayed that matter can be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing denovo assessment. 5.2 The ld. counsel for the assessee on the other hand submitted that during the course of search conducted by Revenue u/s 132 on 19.11.2019, no incriminating materials were found. He drew our attention to the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has taken this information regarding of raising of unsecured loans from the ITR filed by the assessee with the Revenue. He drew our attention to the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fresh loans during the year under consideration was taken. It was submitted that earlier there was a SLP filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumaya Construction Private Limited(supra) which has now been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of unabated/concluded assessment, no additions can be made in an assessment framed u/s 153A unless there is an incriminating material found during search . The ld. Counsel for the assesse relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Backbone Projects Ltd. In R/Tax Appeal No.88 of 2023 with R/Tax Appeal No. 205 of 2023 dated 4 th July, 2023. The ld. Counsel for the assesse stated that these unsecured loans were raised in the year 2011. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse had duly filed return of income originally u/s 139(4) of the 1961 Act , on IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 11 11 31.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,74,180/-. The said return of income was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1). There was a search and seizure operations conducted by Revenue u/s 132 on 19.11.2019 against the ‘Priya Blue Group’, and the assesse’s premises were also covered during the search operations conducted by Revenue. The proceedings u/s 153A of the 1961 Act were initiated by Revenue against the assesse pursuant to search operations conducted by Revenue u/s 132 on 19.11.2019 , and notice u/s 153A of the 1961 Act was issued on 11.01.2021 by the AO to the assesse. In response to the aforesaid notice issued by the AO u/s 153A, the assesse filed her return of income u/s 153A of the 1961 Act on 12.07.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 2,75,823/-. The AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) during assessment proceedings conducted u/s 153A. The assesse participated in the assessment proceedings conducted by the AO u/s 153A, pursuant to search u/s 132. Admittedly, it is the case of an unabated assessment, as the assesse filed return of income originally belatedly u/s 139(4) on 31.03.2018, and the time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) against the return of income originally filed on 31.03.2018 expired on 30.09.2018 i.e. six months from the end of the financial year in which return of income was filed, as per the time limit applicable for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) at the then relevant time. The search and seizure operations were conducted by Revenue u/s 132 on 19.11.2019 , which was after the expiry of time period provided under statute for issuance of notice u/s 143(2). Thus, it is admittedly a case of an unabated/concluded assessment, which is also admitted by ld. CIT-DR. Proceeding further, the AO observed from the income-tax return filed by the assesse for the impugned assessment year that the assesse has received unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 78,52,200/-. The IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 12 12 said loan was not declared by the assesse in the earlier years return of income filed by the assesse with Revenue, and the AO became aware of these loans from the ITR filed for the year under cosideration. The assesse explained that these are old loans which were received in the earlier years, and no fresh loans were received during the year under consideration. It is also an admitted position that no incriminating material was found during the course of search and seizure operations conducted by Revenue u/s 132 of the 1961 Act with respect to these unsecured loans. The AO has made additions of Rs. 78,52,200/- towards the unsecured loans raised by the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act, on the grounds that the assesse has not declared these loans in the return of income filed for the earlier years as well that the assesse failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 68 as no loan confirmations of the lenders, bank statements of the lenders, ITR’s etc. were filed The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO, mainly because the additions were made by the AO in an assessment framed u/s 153A pursuant to search conducted u/s 132, despite the fact no incriminating material was found during the course of search and seizure operations conducted by Revenue u/s 132. The ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj HC) ; also judgment and order in the case of CIT-III v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxmann.com 412 and also judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Anil Bholabhai Patel , dated 30-08-2017 Tax Appeal No. 469 of 2017. The ld. CIT(A) has also referred two other judgments and orders of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT v. Devangi Alias Rupa, reported in (2017) 98 CCH 0051 (Guj HC) and in IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 13 13 the case of PCIT v. Dipak Jashwantlal Panchal, reported in (2017) 98 CCH 0404(Guj HC) . The assesse has also filed before ld. CIT(A) , the loan confirmations and other details such as ITR of the lenders , bank statements of the lenders and other details, as an additional evidences to prove that these loans were received in preceding years and no unsecured loans were raised during the year under consideration , and further that ingredients of Section 68 were duly satisfied and no additions even on merits are not warranted . The ld. CIT-DR has fairly submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of search and seizure operations with respect to these unsecured loans. Section 68 could be invoked in case where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the assesse offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the assesse is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. The assesse has filed as an additional evidences before ld. CIT(A), all details such as loan confirmations of the lender, ITR , bank statements etc. to satisfy that no fresh loans were raised during the year as well the ingredients of Section 68 were satisfied , and claim was made by the assesse before the AO that no additions as were made by the AO are warranted. It is true that the ld. CIT(A) did not call for any remand report from the AO on these additional evidences, but the ld. CIT-DR also could not point out before the Bench any deficiency/defect in the additional evidences submitted by the assesse . Further, importantly, in case of unabated/concluded assessments , no additions could be made in assessment framed u/s 153A pursuant to search, where no incriminating material was found during the course of search and seizure operations , as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 14 14 Limited in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 , vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2023. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a recent judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 in PCIT v. Backbone Projects Limited in R/Tax Appeal No. 88 of 2023 with R/Tax Appeal No. 205 of 2023, after considering the ratio of judgment and order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited(supra) has decided this issue in favour of the tax- payer by holding that no question of law arises in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited(supra). The original assessment in the instant case is admittedly an unabated/concluded assessment and admittedly no incriminating material was found during the course of search conducted by Revenue w.r.t. these unsecured loans raised by the assesse. Thus, in our considered view the additions as were made by the AO of Rs. 78,52,200/- towards unsecured loan raised by the assesse are not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view that no incriminating material was found during the course of search operations conducted by Revenue u/s 132 on 19.11.2019, and the original assessment is an unabated/concluded assessment as time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) expired on 30.09.2018, and hence, we order deletion of the additions of Rs. 78,52,200/- as were made by the AO, and we sustain the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) . We have relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited(supra) and also recent judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Backbone Projects Limited (supra), to dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue fails in this appeal. We order accordingly. IT(SS) A 40/Ahd/2023 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad v. Mrs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar Assessment Year: 2017-18 15 15 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA(SS) No. 40/Ahd/2023 for assessment year 2017-18 stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 18.08.2023 at Ahmedabad, Gujarat in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/08/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद
Other Referred Cases
PCIT v. Saumya Construction P. Ltd., PCIT v. Devangi Alias Rupa, PCIT v. Dipak Jashwantlal Panchal, CIT v. Kabul Chawla, PCIT v. Anil Bholabhai Patel, CIT v. Text Hundred India Private Limited, Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT, CIT, Delhi-VI v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, PCIT v. Backbone Projects Limited
Laws Referred To
Income-tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Stress Management policy Letter
₹0
Social Media Brand Kit
₹100
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026