C I T ALWAR vs. M/S SINNGHAL ASSOCIATES CONTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/809/2008HC RajasthanRJHC02032754200725 February 2015Author: SUNIL AMBWANI,PRAKASH GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 4 lacs. In view of CBDT Instruction No. 2 of 2005, dated October 24, 2005, the Income Tax Department is advised not to prefer appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the tax effect is less than Rs. 4 lacs, unless the question of law is likely to arise repeatedly. The Court found that the questions of law raised in this appeal, having a tax effect of less than Rs. 4 lacs, were not such that they would repeatedly arise, either in the case of the assessee or in similar cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground, without delving into the merits of the validity of the Section 148 notice or the perversity of the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar (Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench 'A', dated March 30, 2007, concerning assessment year 1998-99. The appeal was filed against M/s. Singhal Associates (Assessee). The tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 4 lacs. The Revenue's appeal was based on the ground that the ITAT was not justified in holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not valid, and that the ITAT's order was perverse.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not valid? (Question of law) 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in its findings regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice and that the ITAT's order was perverse. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: JUDGMENT :: D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.809/2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar Vs. M/s.Singhal Associates 25.2.2015 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUNIL AMBWANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Ms.Parinitoo Jain for the appellant. Mr.Mahendra Gargieya with Ms.Manisha Surana for the respondent. ********

1.

In the present appeal filed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'A', Jaipur dated 30.3.2007 in ITA No.195/JP/2005 for the assessment year 1998-99, the tax effect of the appeal is less than Rs.4 lacs.

2.

In view of Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005 issued by CBDT, advising the Income Tax Department not to prefer appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the tax effect is less than Rs.4 lacs, the appeal is not to be filed by the Department, unless the question of law is likely to arise repeatedly in the case of the assessee or in similar cases.

3.

In the present case, the Income Tax Appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was not valid, and further, that the order of Tribunal is perverse.

2

4.

The questions of law raised in this appeal, having tax effect of less than Rs.4 lacs, are not such, which may repeatedly arise, either in the case of the assessee, or in similar cases.

5.

This Income Tax Appeal is consequently dismissed. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),ACTG.CJ. Skant/-, Proof Reader All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Shashi Kant Gaur, Proof Reader

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →