PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. RAM KUMAR DUHAN

ITA/387/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110036201512 February 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 35 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ₹1,13,02,800/- on account of investment from undisclosed sources for land purchase. The CIT (Appeals) quashed this addition, holding that no investment was made by the assessee as the land, though in his name, was part of a company's balance sheet and its transfer was to facilitate conversion of agricultural land. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the CIT (Appeals)'s order. The revenue appealed to the High Court, arguing the assessee failed to provide sustainable documentary evidence for his claim of being a farmer and that the purchase consideration was from agricultural income, despite his returns not reflecting such income. The High Court noted that the sale deeds showed payment by the assessee to a third party.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue was decided on an appreciation of evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was logical and not perverse or irrational. The Court stated that under its jurisdiction for Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, it cannot re-appreciate evidence, especially when no perversity is established. The High Court found no warrant for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had confirmed the CIT (Appeals)'s reasoning that the land was transferred to the assessee without consideration, was part of the company's balance sheet, and the sale proceeds were received by the company, thus no investment was made by the assessee. The High Court concluded that the question raised by the revenue was a question of fact, not a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT erred in law and fact by dismissing the revenue's appeal and deleting the addition of ₹1,13,02,000/- made by the AO on account of investment from undisclosed sources, by holding it as explained, despite the assessee being unable to furnish sustainable documentary evidence of being a farmer and that the purchase consideration was out of agricultural income, when his returns did not reflect such income, and sale deeds showed payment by the assessee to Sh. S.N. Thakur? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The High Court noted the assessee's explanation that the land was transferred to him without consideration for administrative reasons by a company engaged in developing a residential township. This was to comply with Maharashtra State laws requiring land to be in the name of at least two directors with farmer status for conversion to non-agricultural land. The land was shown in the company's balance sheet, stamp duty was paid by the company, and sale proceeds were received by the company. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee was unable to furnish sustainable documentary evidence of being a farmer or having agricultural income, and that the sale deeds indicated payment by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 260-A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 387 of 2015 DATE OF DECISION : 12.02.2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak .... APPELLANT Versus Ram Kumar Duhan ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present: Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) whereby the order of the Assessing Authority making the addition of undisclosed income was quashed.

2.

The matter pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. 3. According to the appellant, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and deleting the addition of ` 1,13,02,000/- made by Narotam Dass 2018.02.12 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA No. 387 of 2015 -2- the A.O. on account of investment from undisclosed sources by holding the same

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 →