ISHWAR PAARKASH vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, KARNAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that there were pure findings of fact recorded by the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. When confronted with the ITO Guwahati's report, the assessee changed its stand, claiming the credits were in the names of four truckers instead of the two firms. The assessee failed to produce these truckers or any supporting documents, other than their affidavits. The Court found that the question of furnishing a copy of the ITO Guwahati's report became insignificant once the assessee adopted a vacillating stand and could not substantiate its revised claim. Therefore, no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose from the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed as wholly without merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Ishwar Parkash, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2002-03. The assessee had declared an income of Rs. 81,960/-. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) verified credits standing in the name of M/s New Rajdhani Roadlines, Guwahati (Rs. 1,80,508/-) and M/s Mahesh Coal Traders (Rs. 87,580/-). The AO appointed a commission under Section 141(1)(d) to confirm these balances. The report from the ITO, Guwahati, indicated that these concerns denied any transactions with the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's order, and the ITAT also dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
The substantial questions of law before the High Court were: 1. Whether not providing the report of the ITO Guwahati to the appellant, when the revenue's case was based on it and it was requested, violated principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appellant was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing or leading evidence? 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the opportunity of cross-examining the concern or confronting the report of ITO, Guwahati, was not material as these were not factors ultimately defended by the assessee? 4. Whether the assessee discharged his onus of proof under the Act? 5. Whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the addition when adequate opportunity of hearing and leading evidence was not afforded to the assessee? Assessee's contentions (implied by the questions): The assessee argued that non-provision of the ITO Guwahati's report violated natural justice and that adequate opportunities for hearing and evidence were denied. The revenue's contentions (implied by the High Court's reasoning) were that the assessee changed its stand and failed to substantiate its case, making the report's provision and cross-examination immaterial.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 141(1)(d),Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 326 of 2007 Date of decision 13 .12 .2007 Ishwar Parkash .. Appellant Versus Commissioner Income Tax, Karnal. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN PRESENT: Mr.Simranjit , Advocate for the appellant. M.M.Kumar, J. The assessee has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench SMC, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed in ITA No.40/Chandi/20-06 dated 18.10.2006 for the assessment year 2002-03. It has been claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for the determination of this Court: “1.Whether not providing the report of the ITO Guwahati to the appellant specially when the entire case of the revenue authorities is based on the said report and even when asked for by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings as well as before the appellate authorities amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; 2.Whether adequate opportunity of hearing or leading evidence was afforded to the appellant; 3.Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that opportunity of cross-examining the said concern or not confronting the report of ITO, Guwahati is not material as those are not the factors which have ultimately being defended by the assessee; 4.Whether the assessee has discharged his onus of proof placed under the Act; and 5.Whether the learned Tribunal was right in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer when the adequate opportunity of hearing and leading evidences was not afforded to the assessee”? Facts in brief are that the assessee filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 81,960/- during the relevant assessment year. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessment Officer carried verification of credit standing in the name of M/s New Rajdhani Roadlines, Guwahati, Rs. 1,80,508/- and M/s Mahesh Coal Traders Rs 87,580/-.The Assessing Officer appointed Commission under Section 141(1)(d) of the Act to get these balances confirmed. On the basis of the report of ITO Guwahati, the Assessing Officer observed that the said concern did not admit any transactions with the assessee in the assessment year under consideration or even in the earlier years. The order of the Assessing Officer was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) under Section 250(6) of the Act and the same was dismissed and the order passed by the Assessing Officer was upheld. On further appeal, the Tribunal accepted the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed on 18.10.2006.
We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and find that there is pure findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal. When the assessee was confronted with the report furnished by the ITO Guwahati in respect of the credit claimed to be outstanding in the name of two firms then the assessee changed his stand and claimed that infact it was standing in the names of four truckers. The assessee was not able to substantiate by producing those truckers nor any other document except the affidavit of those truckers were filed. The question of furnishing a copy of the report prepared by the ITO Guwahati would pale into insignificance whence the assessee himself has taken a vacillating stand. As per the stand taken on later occasion the assessee has not been able to substantiate and prove its case. In such circumstances, we do not find that there was any requirement for supply of a copy of the report by the Income Tax Officer, Guwahati. In these circumstances no question of law much less a substantial question of law would emerge from the order of the Tribunal warranting determination by this Court. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 20.12.2007 Judge okg
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026