COMMISSIONEDR OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. SAT NARAIN YADAV

PDF · subscribers
ITA/183/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095502201121 November 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the revenue admitted that the questions raised in the present appeal were also the questions of law in a previous judgment passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chandani Bhochar, (2010) 323 ITR 510. In that cited case, the said questions of law were decided against the revenue. Therefore, in view of the fact that the same questions of law were already decided against the revenue by this Court, the present appeal was dismissed. The High Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2006-07. The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 1,55,52,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of property. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's observation that the AO had not provided evidence of the assessee paying more than the disclosed amount in the purchase deed and that the AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,52,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property by observing that no evidence was brought on record by the AO indicating that the assessee has paid more than the amount disclosed in the purchase deed, instead of getting proper enquiry conducted by directing the AO to make a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the failure of the learned ITAT to get proper enquiry made by the lower authority through reference to a valuation officer in a case where the facts and the circumstances so demanded does not result in failure which lays open the action of the Ld. ITAT to correction by a higher authority in the light of the ration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT reported in 231 ITR 277? (Question of law, turning on principles of proper enquiry and reliance on precedent). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT erred in deleting the addition without ensuring a proper enquiry by the AO, which should have included a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A. The failure to do so, as per the ratio in Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT, warrants correction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 142A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.11.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ........Appellant vs. Sat Narain Yadav .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J. C.M. No. 27356-CII of 2011 Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee does not want to press the application. C.M. is dismissed as withdrawn. I.T.A. No. 183 of 2011

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi in ITA No. 4547/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue has sought the following substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,52,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property by observing that no evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer indicating that the assessee has paid more than the amount disclosed in the purchase deed, instead of getting proper enquiry conducted by directing the AO to make a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” (ii) Whether the failure of the learned ITAT to get proper enquiry made by the lower authority through reference to a valuation officer in a case where the facts and the circumstances so demanded does not result in failure which lays open the action of the Ld. IAT to correction by a higher authority in the light of the ration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High 277? reena

More judgments on Section 142A

All 364 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →