The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vadodara V. Shri Mayur Bhailal Patel, Vadodara

MA 21/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had previously ruled that certain documents found during a search were not incriminating material against the assessee, Shri Mayur Bhailal Patel. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the ownership and relevance of the documents, which were related to a land transaction involving the assessee. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited by both parties, concluded that the documents were not incriminating and dismissed the Revenue's application, emphasizing that a review of the Tribunal's decision was not warranted.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129866 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Kamleshbhai Dataramshibhai Patel vs. CIT, Soumya Construction vs. CIT, Kabul Chawla vs. CIT, DCIT vs. M/s Sultej Agro Products Limited
• Laws Referred To: Section 153C of the Act, Section 56(2)(viib)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 153C

Judgement Text

M.A. No.21/Ahd/2023 AY: 2012-13 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.21/Ahd/2023 (In IT(SS)A No.229/Ahd/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Mayur Bhailal Patel, Central Circle-1, 2, Shivam Enclave, Vadodara. B/h. Gokulam Society, Manjalpur, Vadodara – 390 011. [PAN – AVCPP 0604 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.K. Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjaykumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 26.05.2023 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue in respect of order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. DR submitted that there is a mistake crept in the order of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the assessee had purchased the land and the sale deed which was found during the search was second copy of the confirming parties and the same could not be stated as incriminating material found during the search at the place of the assessee and the document could not be stated as belonging to the assessee despite the fact that the land in question was purchased by the assessee and the deed papers belong to him even if a copy of the same is found in the seller’s lockers. The meaning of the term belongs to cannot be construed as ownership of the document. The Ld. DR further submitted that the sale deed in respect of land dealing of R.S. No.238 does not belong to the assessee was not correct finding and the aforesaid sale deed had been seized and inventorised in Annexure-8 found from the Locker No.70/B with India Safe Deposit Vault of Shri Rajesh Patel on 07.01.2014 and M.A. No.21/Ahd/2023 AY: 2012-13 Page 2 of 3 the sale deed mentioned assessee’s name as a purchaser which has his signature on it. The Ld. DR further submitted that the sale deed in respect of land does not belong to the assessee and these observations of the Tribunal are not correct. In fact, the jurisdictional High Court on this issue has taken a different view in respect of material belonging to in the case of Kamleshbhai Dtaramshibhai Patel vs. CIT in SCA No. 13635, 13636 & 13643 of 2012. The Ld. DR further submitted that the under valuation of the property is proved by the valuation done by the Stamp Duty Valuation Department at the time of registering the document and the same should have been taken into account by the Tribunal. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the order dated 26.08.2022 be recalled and fresh hearing may be given in the present appeal. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the present Revenue’s Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable since it seeks review and seeks rearguing the matter which is not permissible. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Soumya Construction, which was relied by the Tribunal in paragraph no.7 of the order is apt in the present case as the Tribunal has given the categorical finding that the second copy of the confirming party is not an incriminating material which was not fully signed. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kabul Chawla at the time of hearing of the appeal as well. The Ld. AR further pointed out that the Department in Form No.36 has taken ground no.2 has categorically mentioned that the CIT(A)’s observations that incriminating material seized in the case of the assessee from other persons is not actually incriminating material as per Section 153C of the Act. Ld. AR further submitted that there is no error in the judgement passed by the Tribunal. As regards to stamp valuation, the Ld. AR submitted that it cannot be stated to be incriminating material as it is merely a fiction and not proof and further the assessee being a purchaser and matter related to A.Y. 2012-13, section 56(2)(viib) was inserted and applicable from A.Y. 2014-15 for being applied in the case of purchaser. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Sultej Agro Products Limited (ITA Nos.294 & 295/Del/2015). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Revenue is seeking review at present as there is a categorical finding by the Tribunal that the document found with the purchaser was not incriminating material and the Tribunal has given independent M.A. No.21/Ahd/2023 AY: 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 finding while affirming CIT(A)’s order. The contention of the Ld. DR that the word “belonging to” mentioned in paragraph No. 7 should have been taken into account the case law relied in Kamleshbhai Dtaramshibhai Patel (supra), but the said case will not be applicable in the present case as there was a categorical and independent finding besides the word “belonging to”. In the present case documents found were not incriminating material. Therefore, the Department is seeking review at this juncture which is not permissible. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed. 5 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 31 st May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 31 st day of May, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad