COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, LDH vs. TARLOCHAN SINGH MATHAROO

ITA/178/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074863200611 April 20162 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated that they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the case, specifically regarding the on-money payment, was not adjudicated by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-I, against an order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to the block period from 01.04.1988 to 19.11.1998. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute revolved around the ITAT's decision to disregard collected material evidence supporting an agreement dated 14.08.1997, which allegedly involved payment of on-money over and above the apparent consideration. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated but is implied to be below a certain threshold for the revenue to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the collected material evidence to support the agreement dated 14.08.1997 for payment of on-money over and above the apparent consideration? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of evidence in relation to an agreement). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (respondent). The assessee was represented by senior counsel, but their arguments are not detailed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue (appellant) argued that the ITAT was not justified in ignoring the collected material evidence which supported the existence of an on-money payment. The revenue likely contended that this evidence should have been considered to ascertain the true nature of the transaction and the actual consideration paid, potentially relying on principles of evidence and tax law to establish the existence of undisclosed income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-I, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus Sh. Tarlochan Singh Matharoo ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), in IT(SS)A No. 27/CHANDI/2002, for the Block period 1.4.1988 to 19.11.1998, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the collected material evidence to support the agreement dated 14.8.1997 for payment of on money over and above the apparent consideration? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →