COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHULLAN MAL GUPTA HUF GURGAON

ITA/58/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080586200810 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed to the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 1994-95. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148, treating a claimed foreign gift of Rs. 4,60,000 as undisclosed income. The AO noted the donor denied giving the gift and lacked financial capacity. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the assessee's onus to prove the gift's genuineness, especially with a non-resident donor. The ITAT, however, deleted the addition, relying on a declaration and affidavit from the donor, bank documents, and stating the AO had not produced material to disprove the gift's genuineness. The High Court heard arguments from both sides.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found merit in the revenue's contention that the ITAT's finding was patently perverse. The court noted that the ITAT failed to deal with the reasons provided by the CIT(A) and that the Tribunal's reliance on Umesh Mehndiratta's statement was contradictory and did not support the assessee's case. The court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue. Regarding the assessee's cross objections, the High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the time prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Furthermore, the court found no error in the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) that notice was duly served and responded to by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the cross objections were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in law by allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the addition of Rs. 4,60,000, thereby ignoring the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sh. Lal Chand Kalra and the Apex Court's decision in McDowell & Co. (Revenue's contention). The assessee argued that the ITAT correctly deleted the addition as the donor's declaration, affidavit, and bank documents proved the gift's genuineness, and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence. The revenue contended that the ITAT's finding was perverse, as the statement of Umesh Mehndiratta, cited by the ITAT, actually supported the revenue's stand that the gift was not genuine. The revenue also argued that the ITAT failed to address the CIT(A)'s reasons. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings were beyond limitation and if there was due service of notice (Assessee's Cross Objections). The revenue contended that the proceedings were initiated within the time prescribed under Section 149 of the Act and that the AO and CIT(A) had categorically held that notice was duly served and responded to by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 10.3.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Bhullan Mal Gupta. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 23.3.2007 in ITA No.2790/DEL/2004 for the assessment year 1994-95 raising following substantial question of law:- “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the Juri ictional High Court decision in the case of Sh. Lal Chand Kalra, 22- CTR-135 and Apex Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co., 154-ITR-148?”

2.

The return of the assessee for the assessment year in question was initially processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but, thereafter, the Assessing Officer on

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 →