COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. PREMCHAND AGRAWAL, BHATAPARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/61/2003HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01001660200314 January 2013Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the deletion of the addition of ₹1,76,856 was justified. The Court noted that the remaining sum belonged to private individuals who had either declared the amount in their wealth tax returns prior to the search or confirmed on oath that the cash was theirs. It was for this reason that the Assessee's explanation was accepted under Section 69A of the Act. The Court found that this conclusion was a finding of fact, affirmed by the Tribunal, and that there was no illegality in it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as having no merit. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

A search was conducted by the Income Tax Department on the business and residential premises of Shri Premchand Agrawal (the Assessee) from February 21, 1995, to February 24, 1995. During the search, cash amounting to ₹2,90,199 was found. For the Assessment Year 1995-96, the Assessing Officer accepted the Assessee's explanation for ₹1,13,342 but added the remaining ₹1,76,856 as unexplained income. The Assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A), who accepted the Assessee's explanation and deleted the addition. The Department appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), which dismissed the appeal. The Department has now filed the present appeal before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the deletion of the addition of ₹1,76,856 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A on account of unexplained money found during the course of search, on the basis of explanation and evidence placed by the assessee for the first time before the CIT (Appeals)/Tribunal without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the same. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Assessee before the High Court. However, it is implied that the Assessee supported the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erred in accepting the explanation and evidence provided by the Assessee for the first time before them, without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE 1 1 i (93Wk HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR DMsion genm (CHEATTISGARH) I.T.A.No. 6f OF 2003 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT 196 1 APPELLANT ’ r. Commissioner, Income Tax Raipur (Chhattisgarh) TIEI!SIIS RESPONDENT Shri Premchand Agrawal @Q;09\ . “3“ ‘ Proprietor M/s Annapurna p “a 3h“ &w“p Rice M111 Khalwa Road Bhatapara Dlstrlct Ralpur H's ht“ ”w“ w“ Qm09>w {Chhattmgarh} @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble ShriYatindra Sing h , C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. l.T.A. No. 61 of 2003 APPELLANT Commissioner, Income Tax Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENT Shri Premchand Agrawal Proprietor M/s. Annapurna Rice Mill (Appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act 1961) Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate forthe Appellant. Shri Ashish Choudhary, Advocate for the Respondent.

ORDER (15.01.20 i3) 1. . A search was conducted by Income Tax Department (the Department) under Income‘Tax Act (the Act) in the business and residential premises of Shri Premchand Agrawal (the Assessee) from 21.2.1995 to 24.2.1995. In this search, cash of E 2,90,1 99l- was found.

2.

The proceedings for the Assessment Year 1995-96 were started against the Assessee. The Assessment Officer accepted the explanation for sum of T 1,13,342/—. However, he did not accepted the explanation for the remaining amount namely sum of T 1,76,856/— and added as unexplained income.

3.

Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee filed' an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A) who accepted the explanation of the Assessee by order dated 15.12.1 998. 4. The Department filed appeal (l.T.A. No. 152/Nag/99) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (the Tribunal). This appeal was dismissed on 25.4.2003. Hence the present appeal. l

6.

This appeal was admitted on 10.10.2012 only on one question. There is some typing mistake in question. After corrections the mistake, the question is as follows:-

We have heard counsel for the parties. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income Tax Appeliate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the deletion of addition of ? 1,76,856I- made by Assessing Officer under Section 69A 0n account of unexplained money found during the course of search on the basis of explanation and evidence placed by the assessee for the first time before CIT (Appeals)/Tribunal without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Ofhcer to examine the same." The remaining sum belonged to private persons, who had either shown the amount in their wealth tax returns tiled before the search or connrmed on oath that the cash was their’s. It is because of this reason that the explanation of the Assessee was accepted u/s 69A of the Act.

7.8.

The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact, affirmed by the Tribunal. There is no illegality in the same.

9.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. AA/ Sdl— Chief Justice \il Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha "\*r~=\ Judge / I / l ‘

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →