PRINTWELL PUBLISHER DISTRIBUTO vs. C I T

PDF · subscribers
ITA/24/2006HC RajasthanRJHC02049934200521 March 20172 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to set aside the order of the Tribunal. The reasoning was based on the peculiar facts of the case, specifically that the sole assessee is residing in an old age home and the amount in dispute is very meager. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the judgment and order of the Tribunal were quashed and set aside. The court explicitly stated that this decision should not be treated as a precedent in any other case. No specific finding was recorded on the applicability of Section 40A(2) or the correctness of the income enhancement, as the appeal was allowed on the peculiar facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Printwell Publisher Distributor, filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had partly allowed an appeal by the department, leading to an addition to the assessee's income. The High Court admitted the appeal on August 9, 2007. During the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that the sole surviving partner of the assessee is residing in an old age home and no documents are available. The High Court considered these peculiar facts and the meager amount in dispute.

What were the issues?

The High Court framed two substantial questions of law for decision: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not applicable? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the enhancement of assessing the income done by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the appeal itself challenges the ITAT's order which upheld the enhancement of income. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24 / 2006 Printwell Publisher Distributo ----Appellant Versus C I T ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI

Judgment 21/03/2017

By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the department and has added the income.

2.

This court while admitting the appeal on 9.8.2007 has framed following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not applicable? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the enhancement of assessing the income done by the Assessing Officer?”

3.

It is brought to the notice of the court that the only surviving partner is staying in old age home near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur and no documents are available.

4.

Taking into consideration the observations made by the (2 of 2) [ITA-24/2006] CIT(A) and the peculiar facts of the case, since the only assessee is staying in old age home and that amount is very meager, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside.

5.

Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. However, this will not be treated as precedent in any other case. (MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI),J. (K.S. JHAVERI)ACTING C.J. //25 BM Gandhi

More judgments on Section 40A(2)

All 542 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →