Revenue challenged order of Tribunal contending that it failed to appreciate that disclosure of undisclosed income under section 132(4) was made voluntarily and without any element of coercion could not be retracted without cogent evidence.Held: It was apparent that AO made addition in hands of assessee on basis of disclosure made by another person by bifurcating amount of Rs. 12 crore into three parts inter alia in hands of assessee as amount received for providing client code modification. AO alleged that Rs. 2 crore was received by assessee for providing client code modification and he attributed said amount year-wise in ratio of client code modifications. AO merely held that an amount of Rs. 2 crore out of the amount disclosed was received by assessee from the clients by aiding them by suppressing their profits by way of diversion of profits through the methodology of client code modifications. Contention of revenue that the addition with regard to client code modifications was subsumed in the addition made on account of non-disclosure made under section 132(4), did not merit acceptance.
IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT
HARSHA DEVANI & A.G. URAIZEE, JJ.
Pr. CIT v. Kunvarji Commodities Brokers (P) Ltd.
Misc. Civil Application (OJ) No. 1 of 2016 in R/Tax Appeal No. 607 of 2015
12 March, 2020
Petitioner by: Mauna M Bhatt
Respondent by: B.S. Soparkar
Harsha Devani, J.
By this application, the applicant (original appellant) seeks recall of the Order, dated 2-11-2015 passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 607 of 2015 and seeks admission of the appeal on the proposed substantial questions of law.
2. The applicant, as appellant, preferred the captioned Tax Appeal against the Order, dated 19-3-2015 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'A' (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in IT (SS) A No. 678/Ahd/2010 by proposing the following questions, stated to be the substantial questions of law :--
(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition without appreciating full facts of the case elaborately dealt with by the assessing officer and thereby the order of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse?
(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in not appreciating that the disclosure of undisclosed income under section 132(4) of the Act made voluntarily and without any element of coercion could not be retracted without cogent evidence?
3. By an Order, dated 2-11-2015, this Court had dismissed the appeal by placing reliance upon the Order, dated 6-10-2015 made in Tax Appeal No. 610 of 2015 in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kunvarji Finance Private Limited.