TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] and with respect to the same assessee, but with respect to different assessment years, all these Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 17th March 2016 in I.T.A No. 1864/Ahd/2012 for Assessment Year 2007-2008, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the appellant-Revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No. 75 of 2017 with the following proposed question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming deletion of additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 17th March 2016 in ITA No. 1885/Ahd/2012 for Assessment Year 2007-2008, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and has ordered to delete the entire addition of Rs. 28,37,245/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act and also directed to delete addition of Rs. 41,56,282/-, the Revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No. 94 of 2017 with the following proposed question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,56,282/- merely on the basis that the addition has been made in the case of the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king the addition of Rs. 28,37,245/- as unexplained income under Section 69B of the Act for the purpose of land at village Bavla and Kerala and making addition of Rs. 41,56,282/- in A.Y 2007-2008, the assessee preferred Appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. The learned CIT [A] partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and restricted the addition with respect to the two farmers viz., Shri Budhaji M. Thakore and Shri Bhagaji M. Thakore and directed to delete the remaining addition. The learned CIT [A] also confirmed the addition of Rs. 41,56,282/-. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT [A] in deleting the addition with respect to the other farmers [other than Shri B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the case of the partnership firm, and therefore, if similar additions are made in the case of individual partners, the same can be said to be double taxation. 11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 17th March 2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, by which the learned Tribunal has directed to delete the additions made under Section 69B of the Act as well as the addition of Rs. 28,37,245/- made for A.Y 2007- 2008, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeals with the aforestated proposed question of law. 13. We have heard Shri Varun K Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue at length. It emerges from the impugned orders and even the order passed by the Assessing Office....