PRINCIPAL C.I.T CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. PUNA RAM JANGID

PDF · subscribers
ITA/56/2015HC RajasthanRJHC01020471201505 January 20172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering all relevant facts, arrived at a definite conclusion that the purchase concerned was made by a firm and not by the respondent-assessee. The Court found that this finding of fact by the Tribunal was based on sound appreciation and was not perverse. Therefore, no interference with the Tribunal's order was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 1,00,71,000/- made by the Revenue on account of unexplained sale proceeds of land. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting this addition, particularly in light of an admission made by the assessee under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during a search. The ITAT, however, found that the purchase in question was made by a firm and not by the respondent-assessee, Puna Ram Jangid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,71,000/- made on account of unexplained sale proceeds of land, despite an admission made by the assessee under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during a search? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,71,000/- made on account of unexplained sale proceeds of land, ignoring the admission made under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 56 / 2015 Principal C.I.T (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Puna Ram Jangid -----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. KK Bissa For Respondent(s) : -- _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI

Judgment 05/01/2017

While pressing this appeal, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the order impugned erred while deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,71,000/- made on account of unexplained sale proceeds of land ignoring the fact that admission was made under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act during search. From perusal of the judgment impugned, it reveals that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after considering all relevant facts arrived at a definite conclusion that the purchase concerned was made by a firm and not by the respondent-assessee.

(2 of 2) [ITA-56/2015]

The finding of fact arrived by the Tribunal is based on sound appreciation and that is not at all perverse, as such, no interference therein is warranted.

The appeal is dismissed. (G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Sanjay

More judgments on Section 132(4)

All 3,819 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →