Gujarat High Court
Shri Nilesh Kalidas Shah vs A.C.I.T.....Opponent(S) on 17 November, 2014
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, K.J.Thaker
O/TAXAP/301/2002 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 301 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
SHRI NILESH KALIDAS SHAH....Appellant(s)
Versus
A.C.I.T.....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JP SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KETAN H SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MR BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE, MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for
the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 17/11/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) Page 1 of 5 O/TAXAP/301/2002 JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by the appellant- assessee, challenging the common order passed by the learned ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' (for short, 'the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 4112 and 4039/Ahd/95, Dated : 28.03.2002, whereby, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent-revenue, whereas, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant- assessee.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is a share-broker, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 1992-93, declaring his total income at Rs.22,450/-. Pursuant thereto, during a search, certain documents found to be in the possession of the assesee. On the basis of the same, the AO made certain addition to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved thereby, the assessee approached the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal of the assessee in part. Being aggrieved thereby, both the assessee as well as the revenue approached the Tribunal by filing separate appeals, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Hence, the assessee preferred this appeal, raising the following questions of law;
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank?Page 2 of 5
O/TAXAP/301/2002 JUDGMENT
(2) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the well reasoned order of C.I.T.(Appeals)?"
3. It, however, appears that, at the time of admitting the present appeal, this Court re- framed the aforesaid questions of law as under;
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the well reasoned order of C.I.T.(Appeals) without assigning any reason for reversing the same?"
4. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant-assessee, submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in passing the impugned order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He, further, submitted that the Tribunal, while reversing the order passed by the learned CIT(A), has practically assigned no reason. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the Tribunal be quashed and the matter be remanded to the competent authority for its consideration afresh, on merits and to pass a detailed reasoned order.
5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in "MERCURY METALS (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT", 257 ITR 297. In that case, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO, brushing aside the Page 3 of 5 O/TAXAP/301/2002 JUDGMENT reasons given by the CIT(A) without verifying them, and hence, this Court remanded the matter for its consideration afresh by the competent Authority.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhatt, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-revenue, strongly supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has given detailed reasons in Para-7 of the impugned order for reversing the order of the CIT(A), and hence, the present appeal be dismissed.
7. Heard, learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record, including the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it transpires that while passing the impugned order, it completely overlooked the reasonings given by the CIT(A) and without recording any finding of its own, quashed the order of the CIT(A). It was, as observed and held by this Court in the above-referred decision, incumbent on the Tribunal to ascertain the reasons which were given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in whose order, the order of the Assessing Officer had merged, before quashing and setting aside the same. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the decision of this Court and in view of the above Page 4 of 5 O/TAXAP/301/2002 JUDGMENT discussion, the order of the Tribunal requires to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded.
8. In the result, present appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The impugned common order passed by the Tribunal, Dated : 28.03.2002, is quashed and set aside. The tribunal is directed to hear and decide the appeal filed by the assessee, i.e. ITA No. 4039/Ahd/95 for the A.Y. 1992-93 afresh and on merits and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, by assigning detailed reasons. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) UMESH Page 5 of 5