CIT, LUDHIANA vs. ASHOK KUMAR DHIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/598/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093548201008 December 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded findings of fact that the five persons were genuine partners, evidenced by their filing of income tax returns and the recording of their statements. The High Court considered these findings of fact to be conclusive and not giving rise to any substantial question of law. The ITAT's order was affirmed on the basis of the decision in Varinder Singh's case, which was also subject to appeal before the High Court. Consequently, the first substantial question of law was deemed not to arise for consideration. The second question of law, being consequential to the first, was also held not to arise. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 13,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained investment in the capital account of the assessee, Ashok Kumar Dhir, for the assessment year 2000-01. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,49,071/- assessed as interest on this unexplained capital investment was also deleted. The Commissioner (Appeals) had found that the five alleged partners in whose names the investment was made were genuine, as they filed their income tax returns in Delhi and their statements were recorded. The ITAT affirmed this deletion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,15,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the capital account (Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,49,071/- assessed in the assessee's hand on account of interest on unexplained capital investment (Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court, but it notes that the Commissioner (Appeals) found the five persons to be genuine partners based on their filing of income tax returns and recorded statements. The ITAT affirmed this finding. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ITAT was wrong in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment and consequential interest. The Revenue sought to establish that the ITAT's deletion gave rise to substantial questions of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.12.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ........Appellant vs. Ashok Kumar Dhir .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Jyoti, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 25.9.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' Chandigarh in ITA No. 787/CHD/2008 for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue has sought the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,15,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the capital account.

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,49,071/- assessed in assessee's hand on account of interest on unexplained capital investment.”

The assessee is said to have introduced a sum of Rs. 13,15,000/- in the names of 5 persons which the assessing officer found to be income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In its order dated 24.12.2007, the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal found that all the alleged five partners are filing their returns of income in Delhi. Filing of return at Delhi showed that they were partners. The said persons who appeared before the Assessing Officer and their statements were recorded. It was thus found that the basis of addition of Rs. 13.15 lacs made by the Assessing Officer in the name of five persons as investment from the undisclosed sources is not sustainable. Consequently, the interest thereon was found to be unjustified and deleted. Such order was affirmed by the Tribunal in impugned order dated 25.9.2009 on the basis of Varinder Singh's case, subject matter of ITA No.876 of 2010 before this Court.

The Commissioner has recorded findings of fact that the five persons were the genuine partners, in view of the fact that all such persons have filed their income tax returns. The statements of five persons were also recorded who were assessee at Delhi. Such finding of fact does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of Varinder Singh's case which have been affirmed by this Court in ITA No. 876 of 2010 decided today vide a separate order. The first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in view of the order of even date whereas the second question of law is consequential to the first substantial question, even the said question does not arises for consideration. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) 08.12.2011 JUDGE reena

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →