COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. KISHORE KUMAR BAID, RAJNANDGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA/52/2004HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01001675200406 January 2011Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. The primary reason for dismissal was the preliminary objection raised by the assessee regarding the maintainability of the appeal due to its negligible tax effect. The assessee contended that the tax effect was less than Rs. 2,00,000/-, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the High Court. This submission was not disputed by the Revenue. Considering the negligible tax effect and the submissions of both parties, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the substantial question of law. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are not maintainable and will be dismissed on that preliminary ground.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation was conducted on the business and residential premises of the assessee and his family members on November 11, 1997. Following this, a block assessment was completed, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,03,488/- as undisclosed income for Assessment Year 1997-1998. An additional Rs. 3,34,448/- was added as undisclosed income due to unexplained cash differences found during the search. Furthermore, Rs. 43,000/- was added as undisclosed income for Assessment Year 1998-1999. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the entire undisclosed income of Rs. 4,80,986/-. The Revenue appealed this deletion to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue has now filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,03,488/- made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income for Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning undisclosed income). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit. The tax effect involved was less than Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was below the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 1979 dated 27.03.2000 for filing appeals in the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's submission regarding the monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Dhiren‘dra Mishra & ~ ‘ Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 52 of 2004 . Commssmner of Income Tax Raipur (Chhattlsgarh) Vs. Respondent Shrl Klshore Kumar Bald Sadar Bazar Rajnandgaon (Chhatttsgarh) Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 Present Shn Rajeev Shnvastava wuth ishn Sameer Shnvastava counsel for the appellantirevenu Shn Neelabh Dubey, counsel foqthe respondent 1 ORAL ORDEER (Passed on 7t“ Januaryf201 1) o er Dhirendra Mishra‘ J P Heard. This income tax appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the ‘Act’) has been admitted on the following substantial question of lawz- ‘ “Whether on the facts and in theicircumstances of > the case, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding 1 the

order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,Q3,488/- made by the Assessing Oliicer as undisclosed income for A.Y. 1996-97 and 1997-98? Briefly stated facts of the case as projected in the memo of appeal are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the business premises and the residential premises of the assesses and his family members on 11.11.1997. Thereafter, a l i i (1) (2) QM:-

~...‘~_.e _u block assessment was completed and sum of Rs. 1,03,488l- was added as undi osed income of the assessee ‘for‘ the assessment year 1997-1998. Furtheraddition of Rs. 3,34,448l- l- was made as undisclosed income being unexplained cash" difference found during the course of search, which was not explained. An addition of Rs. 43,000/- is also madeby the , Assassin Officer as undisclosed income for the assessment r year 1998-1 999. ln the appeal preferred by the assesses the Commissioner (Appeal) deleted the entire undisclosed Income of Rs 4 80 986}- and the second appeal preferred by the revenue has been further dismissed by the Tribunal by Impugned order. (4) Before entering into the merits of the icase, Shri Neelabh Dubey. learned counsel appearing for the aissessee raised preliminary __ objection with regard to maintainability of the instant appeal on v - account of monetary limit. lt is argued that the tax effectvinvolyed in this appeal is less than Rs zoé 000/— which is less than monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (henceforth the ‘Board) for the relevant period Vide its circular No. 1979 dated 27.03.2000 for fling appeal in the High Court. (3) (5) This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. (6) ln view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for r the parties and considering negligible tax effect involved in this appeal, which is less than minimum monetary limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- fiXed by the Board for filing an appeal before this High Court, we do not deem it necessaryijto go into the merits of/the case and we dismiss this appeal havihg negligible tax effect. sly. l sci/— g Dhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar Judge ‘ Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →