SHIVRAM RAMCHANDBHAI PATEL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

TAXAP/381/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Shivram Ramchandbhai Patel, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which partially upheld the addition of unexplained income by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Tribunal had reduced the addition from Rs. 18,26,730 to Rs. 13,26,730, accepting Rs. 5,00,000 as explained through agricultural income. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision in the Gujarat High Court, which found no substantial questions of law and dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760135 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN SHAH; AMAN SHAH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2006-07; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Partial relief; Source of the source
• Section: 260A; 151

Judgement Text

"C/TAXAP/381/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 381 of 2019 ========================================================== SHIVRAM RAMCHANDBHAI PATEL Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ========================================================== Appearance: MR KETAN H SHAH(2705) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. AMAN K SHAH(9992) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 06/08/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act, 1961'] is at the instance of the assessee and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Ahmedabad in the ITA No.860/Ahd/2015, dated 15/10/2018 for the A.Y 2006­07. 2. The appellant – assessee has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court:­ (i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as on law the Tribunal was right in law in allowing partial relief of Rs.5,00,000/­ out of total addition made by AO of Rs.18,26,730/­? (ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that, the Appellant is under no obligation to explain the “Source of the source”? Page 1 of 2 C/TAXAP/381/2019 ORDER (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not deciding the ground in reference to challenge to the approval u/s.151 of the Income Tax Act? 3. The appellate tribunal while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee in part recorded the following findings:­ 8. I find that there are no arguments before me to dislodge the findings of the CIT(A). All that the assessee has submitted is that the lenders have categorically confirmed the fact of giving loans, and, for that reason these credits should be held to be genuine. As regards the alleged gift of Rs.4,00,000 and accumulated past savings which are alleged to be Rs.14,87,543, learned counsel has mainly placed reliance on the contentions before the authorities below and reiterated the same. None of these submissions, however, make much sense. As regards the alleged gift of Rs.4,00,000/­ and alleged borrowings of Rs.1,53,100/­ from friends and relatives, I see no reasons to deviate from the well reasoned findings of the CIT(A) which have remained uncontroverted. I approve the same. However, as regards the claim of Rs.14,87,543/­ as accumulated savings and agricultural income, I am of the view that since the assessee was having some agricultural income, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ can at best be treated as explained. To this extent, I uphold the plea of the assessee. 9. In view of the above discussions, I uphold the addition to the extent of Rs.13,26,730/­ and delete the addition to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/­. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and having gone through the materials on record, more particularly, the findings of fact recorded by the appellate tribunal, we see no good reason to disturb the impugned order. In our view, none of the questions as proposed can be termed as the substantial questions of law. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) aruna Page 2 of 2 "