TEJI SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL HARYANA

ITA/171/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109798201505 September 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Teji Singh, filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for assessment year 2009-10. The appeal concerned unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 23,34,075/- in State Bank of India and Rs. 59,92,750/- in Axis Bank. The assessee claimed these deposits were from his father, who had received advances from sale agreements for land. The Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal all rejected the assessee's explanation, finding inconsistencies and lack of evidence, particularly regarding the timing of deposits relative to sale agreements and the cancellation of agreements. The Tribunal upheld the additions made to the assessee's income.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal raised no substantial questions of law. Both the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had adjudicated upon factual issues. The assessee's explanations for the cash deposits of Rs. 23,34,075/- and Rs. 59,92,750/- were found to be inconsistent and unsubstantiated. Specifically, cash deposits in the Axis Bank account were made prior to the sale agreement dated 02.08.2008, contradicting the assessee's claim that the funds originated from an advance received under that agreement. Furthermore, the Commissioner found no withdrawal transactions from the assessee's bank accounts corresponding to the return of advances from cancelled sale agreements. The High Court found no absurdity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 'chargeable income' is to be in the hands of the beneficiary and the 'charge' is to be on the 'real income' of the assessee, in accordance with ITO Vs. Atchaiah (1996) 1 SCC 417? (Question of law). 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances, treating 'capital account transactions' into 'revenue' is unreasonable while charging the character of bank receipts in the hands of the recipient? (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's contentions: - The assessee argued that the Tribunal and Commissioner adjudicated only on factual issues, implying a lack of substantial questions of law. The first question relates to the principle of taxing real income in the hands of the beneficiary, citing ITO Vs. Atchaiah. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue did not explicitly record its contentions in the judgment. However, the High Court's observation that the Tribunal and Commissioner adjudicated upon factual issues suggests the revenue likely supported the lower authorities' findings that the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits were unsubstantiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 142 (1),Section 143 (2),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 171 of 2015 Reserved On : August 22, 2016 Pronounced On : September 05, 2016 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL. * * * Present : Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondent. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. : Invoking Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short – the Act), the assessee has preferred the instant appeal to challenge therein the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench `A', Chandigarh (for short – the Tribunal).

The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 and according to the assessee, in the same, the following substantial questions of law arise :- Monika 2016.09.07 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document “I. Whether the 'chargeable income' is to be in the hands of the beneficiary & the 'charge' has

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 →