SMT PREM KUMARI MATHUR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/347/2017HC RajasthanRJHC02065512201725 July 2018Author: KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI,VIJAY KUMAR VYAS2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The reasoning provided is that the appellant was not given an opportunity for cross-examination before the review of the valuation was conducted. Therefore, the Tribunal's order sustaining the addition was set aside. The appeal is allowed. The operative direction is that the appeal stands allowed, implying the addition sustained by the ITAT is deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Smt. Prem Kumari Mathur (assessee) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The dispute pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the valuation of property. The core of the dispute involves a comparison between the assessee's book value of property as of March 31, 1996, and a valuation conducted by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The amount in dispute is Rs. 7,20,000/-. The procedural history indicates that the High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in law while sustaining an addition of Rs. 7,20,000/-, by ignoring the figure as per books as on 31.03.1996, which amounted to Rs. 82,61,387/- (exclusive of the cost of the elevator), when compared with the valuation as per the DVO, which was Rs. 87,70,000/- (inclusive of the cost of the elevator), to the extent of Rs. 5,50,000/-? Assessee's Contention: The counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed a serious error by not accepting the DVO's valuation of Rs. 87,70,000/- as per the book value of the year 1996-97. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and argued that the issue is purely a question of fact, not a question of law.

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. 347/2017 Smt. Prem Kumari Mathur Through Legal Heir Ravi Mathur Proprietor M/s. Dhdandc , A-8, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 , Central Revenue Building, Department Of Income Tax, Statue Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.L. Poddar for Mr. N.L. Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna for Mr. Anil Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Judgment 25/07/2018 By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant. This Court while admitting the matter framed the following question of law:- In D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 347/ 2017 “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,20,000/-ignoring the figure as per books as on 31.03.1996 which comes to Rs. 82,61,387/- exclusive of the cost of elevator while comparing with the valuation as per DVO which was Rs. 87,70,000/- inclusive of the cost of Elevator to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/-?

(2 of 2) [ITA-347/2017] Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in not accepting the valuation made by DVO at Rs. 87,70,000/- as per book value of the year 1996-97. Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that this is purely a question of fact but it is not a question of law. In that view of the matter, inasmuch since before review of valuation which was done, the appellant was not given a chance of cross examination, in view of the above, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee against the department.

The appeal stands allowed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J A.Sharma/144

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →