M.P. SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers

ITA/989/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081035200822 July 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the ITAT could not be considered perverse. The Court found that the questions of law proposed by the assessee were not substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 260A of the Act. The reasoning was based on a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, which indicated that the ITAT had upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for detailed reasons. The Court was unable to find any grounds to interfere with these concurrent findings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M.P. Singh, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated June 13, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'A'. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2000-2001. The assessee had claimed agricultural income of Rs. 5,00,000 from the sale of Safeda trees grown on his land. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, a view affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently by the ITAT. The assessee contended that he had 20 acres of land where he cultivated Safeda trees, and produced evidence including photographs, statements from villagers, and reports from the Patwari and the Income-Tax Department to support his claim. The ITAT upheld the findings of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT's order is perverse, as it allegedly failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the assessee regarding the sale of Safeda trees and the claimed agricultural income of Rs. 5,00,000 from 20 acres of land. 2. Whether the ITAT's order is sustainable, given that it is purportedly based on surmises and conjectures. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee failed to prove the sale of Safeda trees worth Rs. 5,00,000, despite the assessee presenting evidence such as photographs, witness statements from villagers (Sh. Jasi Ram, Sh. Balak Ram, etc.), and reports from the Income-Tax Department and the Patwari, which purportedly confirmed the sale of Safeda trees from over 12 acres of land. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT's order was perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. He contended that he had substantial evidence, including documentary proof, witness testimonies, and official reports, to substantiate his claim of agricultural income from the sale of Safeda trees. The assessee relied on the evidence of land ownership, cultivation of Safeda trees, photographs, statements from villagers who knew him from childhood and confirmed the sale of trees 3-4 years prior, and reports from the Income-Tax Department and the Patwari. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions, but it notes that the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's evidence for various reasons, which were affirmed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A.No. 989 of 2008 (O &M) Date of decision: 22.7.2009 M.P.Singh ......Appellant Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' New Delhi in ITA No. 1419/DEL/04 for the assessment year 2000-2001, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law: 1. “ Whether the order passed by the ITAT is perverse or not as the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence produced by the appellant to show that the appellant had 20 acres of land and he cultivated Safeda trees on the land which were sold by him and the agriculture income of Rs.5.00 lacs was shown? 2. Whether the order passed by the ITAT is sustainable in I.T.A.No. 989 of 2008 [2] view of the fact that the same is based on surmises and conjectures? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not been able to establish and prove that the assessee has actually sold Safeda trees worth Rs.5.00 lacs in the year under consideration especially when the assessee is having more than 12 acres land on which no crop cultivated except cultivation of Safeda trees, produced photographs of Safeda trees, produced some of the prominent villagers namely Sh.Jasi Ram, Sh.Balak Ram and others who had categorically stated that they knew Mahipal Singh from childhood and he had sold some 3-4 years back Safeda trees and even ignored the inquiries report made by the Income-Tax Department as well as report of the Patwari (Govt.Agency) which confirmed the assessee's submission?” 2. The assessee claimed agriculture income from sale of Safeda trees and produced documentary evidence in respect thereof. The Assessing Officer did not believe the evidence of the assessee for various reasons mentioned in para No.4 of the impugned order. This view was affirmed by the CIT(A). The bills relied upon by the assessee were held to be not genuine for the reasons reproduced in para No.7 of the impugned I.T.A.No. 989 of 2008 [3] judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for detailed reasons given in para Nos. 13,

14 and 16 of the judgment.

After perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer,the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we are unable to hold that the concurrent findings are perverse so as to call for interference. The questions proposed cannot be held to be substantial questions of law.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 22, 2009

JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →