JYOTESH KUMAR JAIN vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AMBALA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that the assessee's argument regarding the Tribunal's failure to deal with written arguments was not supported by the record, as it was not inferable that written arguments were ever submitted or accepted. The Court found that the question of fact regarding the source of the ₹2,00,000 was decided by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Since the son was dependent and no evidence of the source of the funds was produced, the addition was upheld. The appeal was dismissed as no question of law warranted its admission.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Jyotesh Kumar Jain, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an addition of ₹2,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer. This addition was on account of a sum paid to an educational institution during the Financial Year 1998-99 for the admission of the assessee's son. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition. The ITAT found that the amount could not have been paid by the son, Rohit Jain (born 8.8.1990), as he had no declared income, and the payment was made on 21.8.2008. Since the son was dependent on his father and no evidence of the source of income for the ₹2,00,000 was provided, the amount was assessed as the assessee's income.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition of ₹2,00,000 on account of a sum paid to an educational institution for the admission of the assessee's son is sustainable in law, turning on the provisions related to the assessment of income and unexplained cash credits. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that written arguments were submitted to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal failed to address them. The assessee contended that the addition was not sustainable. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended, and the lower authorities found, that the son had no independent income to make such a payment, and in the absence of evidence regarding the source of funds, the amount should be treated as the assessee's income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 26, 2012 Jyotesh Kumar Jain …Appellant Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala …Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the appellant.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest
The short issue raised in the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is whether addition of ` 2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sum paid to an educational institution during the Financial Year 1998-99 for admission of the son of the assessee, is sustainable in the eyes of law. The Chandigarh Bench ‘SMC’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has recorded categorical finding that the amount could not have been paid by the son of the assessee in the absence of any income being declared on account of earning of the minor son in the hands of either of his parents. Thus, such a plea was not sustainable. It is appropriate to mention that Shri Rohit Jain was born on 8.8.1990 and the amount was paid to the M.M. Educational Trust on 21.8.2008. The son is dependent upon his father and in the absence of any evidence concerning the source of income of ` 2,00,000/-, the amount in question has to be assessed as income of the assessee. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal accepted the findings recorded by the CIT (A).
We have heard learned counsel for the assessee- appellant at some length and are of the view that no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise. Mr. Ravi Shankar has argued that written arguments were submitted and the Tribunal has failed to deal with the written arguments. From the record or the order of the Tribunal it is not inferable that written arguments were ever submitted or accepted by the Tribunal. In any case, the question of fact has been decided by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. No question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
(ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH) March arch arch arch 26, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2012
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
