CIT-III vs. . VARINDER SINGH LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/876/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093855201008 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 findings recorded by the ITAT were based upon the evidence led by the assessee, which was not rebutted by the revenue. The Tribunal had noted that the partners were income tax assessees and that copies of balance sheets with requisite details were on record, and the revenue authorities had not been able to rebut the correctness of these documents. The Court concluded that these were findings of fact and did not give rise to a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25.9.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2000-01. The assessee, Varinder Singh, invested Rs. 16 lacs in a partnership firm, M/s. Varinder Singh Sadhu Ram and Company, holding a 10% share. The Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar, received information suggesting that Rs. 15.50 lacs of this investment originated from eight individuals whose given addresses were found to be incorrect. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated this amount as the assessee's undisclosed income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) in appeal set aside the AO's findings, and this decision was affirmed by the ITAT.

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.15,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the capital account, turning on Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT's findings were based on evidence placed on record, including balance sheets with requisite details, which the revenue authorities failed to rebut. The partners contributing to the firm were income tax assessees. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the AO had made an addition of Rs. 15,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the capital account, based on information that the contributors' addresses were incorrect, implying the amount was undisclosed income.

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. Varinder Singh .......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. 692/CHD/2008 for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue has sought the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs.15,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the capital account.”

The assessee is said to have invested a sum of Rs. 16 lacs in the partnership firm in the name of M/s. Varinder Singh Sadhu Ram and Company having 10% share. The Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar received information that the assessee had contributions of Rs. 15.50 lacs from eight different individuals who were not living at the addresses given by the assessee, therefore, the Assessing Officer on the basis of such information has observed that this amount of Rs. 15.50 lacs was apparently undisclosed income of the assessee.

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, in appeal has set aside the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. It found that there is no material to establish that Rs. 15.50 lacs received by the assessee, from partners in the said partnership firm, can be treated as assessee's undisclosed income. It is said finding which was affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order in the present appeal.

The Tribunal has also recorded that the partners are income tax assesses and the copies of balance sheet in the requisite details have been placed on record. The revenue authorities have not been able to rebut the correctness of such documents.

We find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon the evidence led by the assessee which was not rebutted by the revenue. Such findings are findings of fact which does not give rise to substantial question of law. 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 →