Dismissed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 28 v. M/S. Gahlot Construction

Bombay HC22 Jul 2019ITXA/484/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, arising from an assessment for AY 2009-10, challenges the Tribunal's deletion of an income addition derived from a statement under section 132(4). The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the deletion made due to lack of independent evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 28 Vs M/S. Gahlot Construction — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

ITXA.484.2017_26.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.484 OF 2017

¶5

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 28 … Appellant

¶6

¶7

M/s.Gahlot Construction … Respondent

¶8

Mr.N.C. Mohanty for the Appellant

¶9

CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &

¶10

S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶11

DATED: JULY 22, 2019

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This Appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal. The following question is presented for our consideration:

¶14

a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs.53 lakhs being the amount computed by adopting partial/percentage completion method, as admitted by the assessee under section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Appeal, 1961 which has binding effect and full evidentiary value?

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

ITXA.484.2017_26.doc

¶17

The issue pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-2010. The facts on record would suggest that the assessee, which is a firm engaged in real estate development, was subjected to search action and statement of one of the partners was recorded. It was pointed out out that after 1.4.2004, the assessee had to follow the percentage completion method of accounting as a developer. Thereupon, the partner had agreed to offer an income of Rs.1.60 crores for the said Assessment Year 2009-2010. However, in the return filed by the assessee post-search, no such additional income was offered to tax. Such addition was made by the Assessing Officer and challenged before the CIT (Appeals). The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment relied upon its earlier decision in the case of one Bhoomi Construction Projects and deleted the addition.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Revenue in addition to arguing the appeal on merits pointed out that the Department had carried the case of Bhoomi Construction Projects before the High Court, however, such appeal was withdrawn on the ground of low tax effect.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

ITXA.484.2017_26.doc

¶21

We are not basing our consideration on the decision in the case of Bhoomi Construction. However, the facts on record would suggest that the assessee was not following the project completion method but percentage completion method for income recognition. The Tribunal in the case of Bhoomi Construction had come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had not brought any evidence that by such method, any income chargeable to the estate, the assessee was regularly following the said method for computing.

¶22

Under the circumstances, the addition made by the Assessing Officer merely on a statement made by one of the partners of the firm recorded under section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without there being any independent additional evidence, was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. No question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed.

¶23

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

¶24

Page 3 of 3

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 28 v. M/S. Gahlot Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 28 v. M/S. Gahlot Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Najamus Sahar M. Mulla Vs Mrs. Farhad Jabeen Mulla

Shri. Kashinath Laxman Mandalik Alias Haribhau Balu Mandalik (through Poa Appellant NO.4)AND Ors. Vs Samarth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Ranjana Inderkumar Jain and Ors.

M/S. Opera Clothing Now Known as Opera Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer 18 (1)(3)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - 1 Vs M/S. Rehab Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-1 Vs M/S Rehab Housing Pvt. Ltd.