M/S ASA SINGH COTTON FACTORY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/20/2000HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036330200010 January 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Asa Singh Cotton Factory, Kotkapura, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order, in ITA No. 627 (ASR) of 1994, related to assessment year 1992-93. The dispute concerned the yield percentage of cotton. The assessing officer fixed the yield at 30.80% (as per Cotton Corporation of India). The assessee claimed a yield of 30.47%, and the appellate authority determined a reasonable percentage as 30.67%. The High Court was considering whether to interfere with this factual determination.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue was purely factual. The sole argument presented by the assessee was that the purchase and sale registers were not doubted. However, the revenue pointed out that records were also maintained on an estimation basis and crucially, no stock register was maintained by the assessee. The Appellate Authority had considered all the evidence, including comparables, and adopted a reasonable approach in the absence of reliable documentary evidence. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the factual appreciation by the Appellate Authority, which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the factual determination of the yield percentage by the appellate authorities, given that the purchase and sale registers were not doubted by the assessee. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The purchase register and sale register were not doubted, implying the factual basis for the yield calculation should be accepted. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the factual appreciation by the appellate authority, which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The revenue noted that record was also maintained on an estimation basis and no stock register was maintained. The appellate authority considered the evidence in entirety, comparables, and adopted a reasonable approach in the absence of reliable documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

379 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-20-2000 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.01.2020 M/S ASA SINGH COTTON FACTORY, KOTKAPURA THROUGH ITS PARTNER ...... APPELLANT VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN **** Present :- Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi,Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Varun Issar, Junior Panel Counsel for the respondents. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (

Oral

)

1.

This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 627 (ASR) of 1994 relating to assessment year 1992-93 upholding the decision of the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the appellant had been partly accepted and against its claim of the yield 30.47% vis-a- vis the 30.80% assessed by the assessing Officer (the yield fixed by Cotton Corporation of India) reasonable percentage was taken as 30.67%.

2.

In our considered opinion, the issue was purely factual. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the pur

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →