Gujarat High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Darshiniben Mahsukhbhai Adani on 24 September, 2020
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya, Ilesh J. Vora
C/TAXAP/250/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 250 of 2020
==========================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5
Versus
DARSHINIBEN MAHSUKHBHAI ADANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 24/09/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the Appellant.
The present Tax Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law -
"[A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,49,84,150 made on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable properties and addition of Rs.1,89,250 on account of deemed income under Section 50C of the Act solely on the ground that revision order passed under section 263 of the Act was set aside, without appreciating that an appeal under section 260A in respect of the same has been preferred before this Hon'ble Court?
[B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of CIT(A) is right on the observations that "Once that order was set aside, then there is no issue remained to be inquired at the end of the Assessing Officer. In other words, power to pass fresh assessment order under section Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 25 03:05:58 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/250/2020 ORDER 143(3) r.w.s. 263 with the Assessing Officer on this issue has been extinguished", though the facts clearly indicated that the Appellate Tribunal did not vacate the order of PCIT under section 263 of the Act on this issue when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order?
[C] Whether the appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of suppressed job work income amounting to Rs.27,43,663/-, based on the contention of assessee that the job work was offered after netting off income from job work, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish necessary details before the Assessing Officer and the deduction from the gross receipts was not substantiated?"
To be heard along with Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2018.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 25 03:05:58 IST 2020