JASBIR SINGH vs. CIT PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/547/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084666200912 November 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the substantial questions of law. Regarding question (i), the Court noted that a notice under Section 142 had been served upon the assessee, and therefore, there was no error in making the assessment under Section 144. The Court held that this question did not constitute a substantial question of law. For questions (ii) to (iv), the Court perused the findings concurrently recorded by the three authorities (Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and ITAT). The Court found that these findings were based on the appreciation of evidence. The argument that the authorities did not appreciate the evidence correctly was deemed insufficient to hold that a substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jasbir Singh, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had upheld the assessment finalized under Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the assessee's income, treating bank deposits in the assessee's name and in the name of his son as unexplained income. The assessee had declared nil income, apart from non-taxable agricultural income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT confirmed these additions. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the assessment under Section 144 without conforming to the proviso to Section 144(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders treating bank deposits from declared sources like agricultural income, interest income, and advance from sale of agricultural land as unexplained income, rendering the ITAT's order perverse. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders treating the declared income of the assessee's son, who is of majority age and assessed individually, as unexplained income of the appellant, leading to unwarranted double taxation. 4. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the assessment under Section 144 was finalized without adhering to the proviso to Section 144(1). The assessee also contended that the bank deposits were from known and declared sources, supported by evidence, and that the income of his major son, assessed individually, was wrongly treated as unexplained income of the appellant, leading to double taxation. The assessee argued that the ITAT's orders were perverse. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 144,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITA No. 547 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 547 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 12, 2009 Jasbir Singh ...Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Patiala. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the appellant.

ORDER

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B' Chandigarh in ITA No. 108/Chandi/2008 dated 31.12.2008, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in finalizing the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without conforming to the proviso to Section 144 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating the deposits in banks out of various known/declared sources being that of agricultural income, interest income and advance from sale of agricultural land duly evidenced by various evidences, so that so the orders of the ITAT are perverse ? iii) Whether on the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating the declared income of son who being of age of majority and duly assessed individually as unexplained income of appellant from unknown sources which leads to double taxation being unwarranted ? iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law”

2.

The assessee filed return in pursuance of notice under Section 142 (1) declaring nil income, apart from non-taxable income from agricultural. The Assessing Officer found investments in banks and deposits in the name of the son of the assessee and treating the said amount as unexplained income, additions were made, under Section 144. CIT (A) and the Tribunal upheld the assessment.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4.

As regards question (i), attention of the learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to second proviso to Section 144. Notice under Section 142 having been served upon the assessee, there was no error in making assessment under Section 144. The question raised cannot be held to be substantial question of law.

5.

As regards questions (ii) to (iv), we have perused the findings concurrently recorded by the three authorities. The said findings are based on appreciation of evidence. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities did not appreciate the evidence correctly is not enough to hold that substantial question law arises.

6.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 12, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →