Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 vs Dhwani Mahendra Shah....Opponent(S) on 12 September, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav
O/TAXAP/674/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 674 of 2017
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5....Appellant(s)
Versus
DHWANI MAHENDRA SHAH....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 12/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.10.2016 raising following questions for our consideration:
"A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in not considering the statement of Shri Mukesh M Chokshi taken on oath u/s. 132(4) of the Act and is binding as evidence or not?
B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the additions without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not carried out share transactions through stock exchange and those transactions were carried out off market, thus should be treated as illegal and fraudulent or not?"
2. The Assessing Officer having made the additions on the ground Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Sep 16 15:43:58 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/674/2017 ORDER of bogus purchases which were confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), the Tribunal, by the impugned judgement, reversed the orders of the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal observed that the entire assessment was based on the statement of one Mukesh M Chokshi, a copy of which was not supplied to the assessee nor opportunity of cross-examining him was granted. In addition to the said defect, the Tribunal also gave independent reasons for overturning the orders of the Revenue authorities. It was noticed that the consideration for purchase of shares was paid by cheque. The shares were transferred in the names of the assessee and thereafter to the demat account of the assessee. It was from such demat account the shares were sold.
3. It can thus be seen that the issue is primarily based on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) Jyoti Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Sep 16 15:43:58 IST 2017