DIRECTOR INCOME TAX vs. SANDEEP RAWAT HALDILON K RASTA

ITA/286/2009HC RajasthanRJHC02050900200927 August 2012Author: ARUN MISHRA,NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues involved in the appeal, as framed by the appellants (Revenue), were questions of fact. It is a settled law that High Courts can admit Income Tax appeals only on substantial questions of law, and findings of fact cannot be interfered with. Furthermore, the Court noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 2 Lacs, which was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 4 Lacs for filing an appeal at the relevant time. Consequently, as no substantial question of law was involved and the appeal did not meet the monetary threshold, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The application filed by the appellants was also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, through the Director of Income Tax (Int.Tax) & Anr., filed an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allowed the assessee's appeal. The dispute arose from the Assessment Order dated March 24, 2006, for Assessment Year 2003-04. The Commissioner (Appeals) had decided two issues: one regarding a trading addition of Rs. 2 Lacs against the assessee, and another regarding an addition of Rs. 18,81,779/- in favour of the assessee, with interest to be recalculated. The ITAT's order dated October 17, 2008, reversed the Commissioner's findings on both issues, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT committed an illegality in reversing the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the trading addition of Rs. 2 Lacs, which is a question of fact? (Assessee's contention: The ITAT's finding is factually incorrect and an illegality. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the ITAT's finding with respect to the addition of Rs. 18,81,779/- is incorrect, which is a question of fact? (Assessee's contention: The ITAT's finding is factually incorrect. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.) The Revenue argued that the ITAT's findings on both issues were factually incorrect and that the Tribunal committed an illegality in reversing the Commissioner's findings. The Revenue contended that the issues involved were questions of fact, and the High Court can only interfere on substantial questions of law. The Revenue also pointed out that the tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 2 Lacs, which was below the threshold for filing an appeal at the relevant time (less than Rs. 4 Lacs).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.286/2009 Director of Income Tax (Int.Tax) & Anr. Vs. Shri Sandeep Rawat Date of Order: August 27, 2012 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellants BY THE COURT(Per Jain J.) Heard

learned

counsel

for the appellants.

This Income Tax Appeal has been filed by Revenue, challenging the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur, whereby appeal of Revenue, against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was dismissed and appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The appeal arises from the Assessment Order dated 24th March, 2006 for Assessment Year 2003-04. Being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, the assessee filed an appeal. The appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Jaipur vide its order dated 28th February, 2008 decided the first issue, relating to trading addition of Rs. 2 Lacs, against

2 asseee, second issue, relating to addition of Rs.18,81,779/-, in favour of assessee. So far as charge of interest is concerned, it was directed that the same be recalculated.

Being aggrieved with the finding of the first issue relating to trading addition of Rs. 2 Lacs, the assessee preferred an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and against finding with regard to Issue No.2 relating to addition of Rs. 18,81,779/-, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 17th October, 2008 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence Revenue has preferred this appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that findings of the Tribunal in respect of both these issues are factually incorrect. The learned Tribunal committed an illegality in reversing the finding of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to Issue No.1 relating to trading addition of Rs.2 Lacs. He also submitted that finding of Tribunal with respect to another issue relating to addition of Rs.18,81,779/- is also incorrect.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of reasons assigned by the Tribunal. We have also examined orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Assessing Officer. We find that both points involved in the present appeal

3 and the questions of law framed by appellants in the memo of appeal are relating to questions of facts. It is a settled law that the Income Tax appeals can be admitted by High Court on substantial questions of law. The finding of fact cannot be interferred with.

That apart, from the application filed by appellants showing the tax effect involving in the present appeal, it appears that the tax effect involved in the case is Rs. 2 Lacs, as mentioned in Para 4 of the application dated 2nd July, 2012. Appeal was filed on 9th March, 2009, whereas appeal could not have been filed at the relevant time, wherein tax effect was less than Rs. 4 Lacs.

Since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. I.A. No. 19915/2012 also stands disposed off.

(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ.

BKS/-

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” B.K. SHRIVASTAVA PRIVATE SECRETARY

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →