C I T JAIPUR vs. M/S HOTEL NEELGAGAN PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/132/2003HC RajasthanRJHC02029414200327 September 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by its own Division Bench judgment in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.100/2002 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukhtayar Ahmad & ors) decided on September 9, 2016. The counsel for the respondent assessee did not dispute the factual matrix presented by the appellant Revenue. Consequently, in view of the binding precedent established by the earlier Division Bench judgment, the present appeal was required to be dismissed. The High Court did not decide any specific issue on merits related to the assessment order or the ITAT's directions, but rather disposed of the appeal based on the applicability of the prior judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on December 18, 1998, at the business premises of the respondent assessee, M/s. Hotel Neelgagan (P) Ltd. The search also extended to associate units and the residence of the Director. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed an order under Section 158 BC read with Section 144 of the I.T. Act on December 31, 1997, determining undisclosed income at Rs. 73,99,664/-. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which partly allowed the appeal on March 31, 1999. The Revenue appealed this ITAT order to the High Court, which is pending. For certain issues, the ITAT had directed the A.O. for fresh consideration with specific directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.100/2002 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukhtayar Ahmad & ors) decided on 9.9.2016. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factual matrix presented by the appellant. Revenue's Contention: The controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.100/2002 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukhtayar Ahmad & ors) decided on 9.9.2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 158 BC,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.132/2003 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Hotel Neelgagan (P) Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 27 September, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the appellant. Mr. Atul Saxena, for the respondent. ***** BY THE COURT:- (Per Hon'ble Jhaveri, J.) Heard counsel for the parties. The brief facts of the case are that a search was carried out under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as I.T. Act)on 18.12.1998 at the business premises of the respondent assessee company. Search was also carried out at the associate units and at the residence of the Director Shri Haji Jan Mohd. of the respondent assessee company. The original assessment order under section 158 BC read with section 144 of the I.T. Act was made on 31.12.1997. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to A.O.) determined the undisclosed income of Rs. 73,99,664/- Against this assessment order the respondent assessee company preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

2 (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), which was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.3.1999. The Revenue preferred appeal against that order of the learned Tribunal before the High Court, which is pending for adjudication and for some issues the learned Tribunal had directed the A.O. for fresh consideration with some directions. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Anuroop Singhi submits that controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.100/2002 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukhtayar Ahmad & ors) decided on 9.9.2016. Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the aforesaid factual matrix. In view of the above, this appeal is required to be dismissed in terms of the same judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (Banwari Lal Sharma), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. Brijesh94.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →