C I T BIKANERR vs. SH RAM DEV KUMAR CHITLANGIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/112/2007HC RajasthanRJHC01015603200508 May 2012Author: DINESH MAHESHWARI,NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel that a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court had already heard and dismissed a similar appeal (Income Tax Appeal No. 57/2006) concerning the assessment year 1995-96, which involved substantially similar questions of law. Therefore, the present appeal was dismissed in the same terms as the earlier decision. The specific findings of the ITAT on the genuineness of the gifts and the deletion of the addition by the AO were not re-examined by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner) filed an appeal before the High Court against a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT's decision pertained to assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 concerning the assessee, Ram Dev Kumar Chitlangia. The present appeal, relating to assessment year 1994-95, was admitted on specific substantial questions of law concerning the genuineness of NRI gifts and the deletion of an addition by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Revenue's counsel conceded that a co-ordinate bench had already dismissed a similar appeal for assessment year 1995-96 on identical issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding NRI gifts as genuine, despite the assessee allegedly failing to prove the donor's capacity and the gift not being made on a social occasion? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 40,000/- made by the AO, who treated the gifts as arranged by the assessee using undisclosed income? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in accepting the gifts as genuine because the assessee did not establish the donor's financial capacity and the gifts were not made on any social occasion. The Revenue also contended that the AO was justified in making an addition based on the belief that the gifts were arranged by the assessee using his undisclosed income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs Ram Dev Kumar Chitlangia DATE OF ORDER: 8th May 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. K.K. Bissa, Government Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Manoj Bissa for Mr. Sanjeet Johari, for the respondent. <><><> This appeal by the revenue is directed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 09.01.2004 whereby the ITAT decided two appeals and connected cross-objections pertaining to the assessment years 1994-95 & 1995-96 relating to the same assessee (the respondent herein). The present appeal relates to assessment year 1994-95 (referable to Appeal No.371/JDP/99 before the ITAT) and was admitted on 16.08.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the NRI gifts as genuine ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to prove the capacity of the donor who is stranger and gift was not made on any social occasion? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned tribunal was right in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.40,000/- made by the A.O. treating the gifts as arranged by the assessee by utilizing his undisclosed income?”

The learned counsel for the appellant has frankly pointed out that the other appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1995-96, arising out of Appeal No.372/JDP/99 before the ITAT, was registered in this Court as Income Tax Appeal No.57/2006 and was admitted on essentially the similar nature substantial questions of law; and the said appeal in this Court (No.57/2006) was heard and dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 16.05.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue frankly submits that the issue involved in the present appeal stands covered against the revenue in view of the decision in the said Income Tax Appeal No.57/2006.

In view of the submissions so made, this appeal stands dismissed following the order dated 16.05.2008 in Income Tax Appeal No.57/2006 and in the same terms. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/-

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →