Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Somchand Shah....Opponent(S) on 22 January, 2018
Bench: Harsha Devani, A.S. Supehia
O/TAXAP/1023/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1023 of 2017
===================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
5....Appellant(s)
Versus
BHARTI SOMCHAND SHAH....Opponent(s)
===================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant No. 1
MR.D K.PUJ, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 22/01/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. The appellantrevenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has challenged the order dated 21.10.2016 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B in ITA No.926/Ahd/2015 for assessment year 2008 09, by proposing the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law:
[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?
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Mon Jan 22 23:03:01 IST 2018
O/TAXAP/1023/2017 ORDER
[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. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate for the respondent in the appeal.
3. The learned advocate for the respondent has drawn the attention of the court to the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by this court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax5 v. Dhwani Mahendra Shah, rendered in Tax Appeal No.674 of 2017, to submit that in an appeal arising out of the common order of the Tribunal, raising identical questions, this court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that therefore, for the same reasons, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed.
4. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of law.
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Mon Jan 22 23:03:01 IST 2018
O/TAXAP/1023/2017 ORDER
5. Having regard to the fact that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the above referred decision of this court, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 12.9.2017 passed by this court in Tax Appeal No.674 of 2017, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed.
Sd/ [HARSHA DEVANI, J] Sd/ [A. S. SUPEHIA, J] *** Bhavesh[pps]* Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Mon Jan 22 23:03:01 IST 2018