C.I.T.UDAIPUR vs. MAHESH KUMAR

ITA/70/2010HC RajasthanRJHC01042201200927 September 2010Author: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,DINESH MAHESHWARI7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This intra-court appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur (Revenue) against an order dated April 9, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2001-2002. The ITAT had partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The core issue involved additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 15,45,000, which were treated as income from an unexplained source. The AO and CIT(A) had upheld these additions, but the ITAT set aside the orders, accepting the assessee's explanation.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that it did not involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The Court reasoned that the ITAT had examined the assessee's explanation in detail and recorded a finding for its acceptance. Such a factual finding, when challenged, does not constitute a substantial question of law. The Court stated that it cannot undertake a re-examination of factual issues or draw factual inferences in an appeal under Section 260-A. The Court emphasized that once an appellate court (the Tribunal) accepts an explanation, its finding on such explanation is binding on the High Court. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's detailed appreciation of the explanation and its decision to delete the additions. Regarding the conflicting statements, the Court held that it was a matter of explaining the source of income, and the Tribunal, as the last court on facts, was empowered to appreciate the explanations and record findings, which it had done.

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? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments before the High Court, but it implies that the assessee's explanation for the income was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's reasoning, as quoted, suggests the assessee relied on the statement dated March 16, 2004, of Shri Thimma Reddy, which contradicted the earlier statement dated December 10, 2003, relied upon by the AO. The assessee also relied on the cases of CIT Vs. P.Kalyanasundaram, Usha Kant N Patel Vs. CIT, and Ishwarya K. Rai Vs, DCIT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee's explanation, arguing that it was not a plausible explanation and should not have been accepted. They further argued that the Tribunal should have relied on the statement supporting the Revenue (dated December 10, 2003) when there were two conflicting statements. The Revenue argued that the factual scenario of the explanation could never be satisfactory for deleting the AO's addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 69,Section 69A

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 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.70/2010 : 27.9.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 9.4.2009 passed by I.T.A.T., Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short called Tribunal) in I.T.A. No.331/JU/2006 for the period AY 2001-2002. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and reversed the order of Commissioner of Appeals on the issue raised in this appeal.

3.

So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether it involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A ibid?

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal

2 in limine as in our opinion the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out within the me

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 →