C.I.T., CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. BHERU LAL SURANA

ITA/75/2010HC RajasthanRJHC01033539201015 March 2011Author: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,CM TOTLA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

These are appeals filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated November 17, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The appeals involve multiple assessment years and parties, including Bheru Lal Surana, Jai Pal Surana, and Smt. Geeta Devi, with the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) being the appellant. The ITAT's order partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, modifying the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. The core of the dispute revolves around additions/deletions made based on the re-determination of the Gross Profit (GP) percentage on the assessee's yearly turnover and adjustments for net turnover.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals did not involve any substantial question of law as required by Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The Court reasoned that the core issues concerning the re-determination of the Gross Profit (GP) percentage and the grant of set-off were essentially questions of fact. The Tribunal had examined the assessee's explanations in detail and accepted them in part, which is a factual finding. The High Court stated that it cannot undertake a de novo factual inquiry in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A. Such appeals are maintainable only if the factual finding is entirely dehors the subject, based on no reasoning, absurd reasoning, or against a provision of law. The Court found none of these conditions met. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given that the dispute pertains to the re-determination of Gross Profit (GP) percentage and set-off for net turnover. Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but the Tribunal's partial acceptance of the assessee's explanation implies the assessee provided satisfactory factual explanations and evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee's explanation, contending that it was not a valid explanation and therefore should not have been accepted. They further argued that the factual scenario presented by the assessee was not a satisfactory explanation for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and that the Tribunal's finding was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T (1) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.75/2010 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. BHERU LAL SURANA) (2) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.04078/2010 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. JAI PAL SURANA) (3) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.04115/2010 (CIT., UDAIPUR VS. JAI PAL SURANA) (4) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.04117/2010 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. BHERU LAL SURANA) (5) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.36/2011 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. BHERU LAL SURANA) (6) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.37/2011 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. BHERU LAL SURANA) (7) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.38/2011 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. JAI PAL SURANA) (8) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.39/2011 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. SMT. GEETA DEVI) (9) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.40/2011 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. BHERU LAL SURANA) (10) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41/2011 (CIT., CENTRAL, JAIPUR VS. BHERU LAL SURANA) Date of Judgment : 15.03.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.)

2 The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of othe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →