Gujarat High Court
The vs Kamlesh on 28 July, 2008
Author: K.A.Puj
Bench: K.A.Puj
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/152/2008 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 152 of 2008
=========================================
THE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
Versus
KAMLESH
VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 28/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The Revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1995-96 proposing to formulate following questions of law :-
?S [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) directing to delete the addition of Rs.5,65,630/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of income from undisclosed sources.
[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) directing to delete the addition of Rs.19,443/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for agricultural operations which treated as income fourth undisclosed sources u/s.69C of the I.T. Act.???
2. Heard Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the orders passed by the authorities. The CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal both had given concurrent findings and deleted the additions in question.
3. The Tribunal has in terms observed in its order that no cogent material or evidence was brought on record by the Revenue on the basis of which a view different than that has been taken by the CIT (Appeals) can be taken. The Tribunal has further observed that the additions were made on the basis of the surmises and conjunctures.
4. As regards agricultural income also, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition because there is no material mentioned in the assessment order except the presumption that the agricultural expenses are not properly mentioned by the assessee. The Tribunal has further taken note of the fact that CIT (Appeal) has rightly held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in alleging that opening capital of Rs.5,65,630/- was non-genuine, and thereby adding the same as income from undisclosed sources.
5. Since the Tribunal has taken the view after appreciating the facts and evidence on record and this being a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
We, therefore dismiss this appeal.
(K. A. Puj, J.) (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) sudhir Top