CIT, JAIPUR vs. HARDEEP SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/139/2011HC RajasthanRJHC02045228201102 May 2012Author: NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN,BHAGWATI MAHESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present appeal is purely a question of fact. It noted that there was a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and the Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The High Court reiterated that an income tax appeal can only be admitted by the High Court if it involves a substantial question of law. Since, in its view, no substantial question of law was involved in this appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine (at the outset). The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jaipur, is the appellant in this appeal before the High Court. The assessee is Hardeep Singh Sethi. The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench 'A', dated February 25, 2011. The ITAT had dismissed the Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had held that there was no concealment of facts regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT affirmed this finding, stating that the Department could not controvert it with any material.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law, as required for admission by the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's decision is based on its own assessment of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, as the appellant, implicitly contends that there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal, warranting admission. However, the judgment focuses on the High Court's view that no such question exists.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10BA,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) DB INCOME TAX APPEAL 139/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.139/2011 DATE:02.05.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sameer Jain, for the appellant. **** Heard the learned counsel for appellant.

2.

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Jaipur discussed the issues in detail and held that there was no concealment of facts so far as the claim of deduction under Section 10BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned. After quoting the finding of CIT (A), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'A', Jaipur, while dismissing

the appeal of the Department, observed that the said finding could not be controverted nor any material brought on record to establish otherwise, and consequently, affirmed the finding of the CIT(A), vide its order dated 25.02.2011. (2) DB INCOME TAX APPEAL 139/2011

3.

After hearing the learned counsel for appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that issue involved in the present appeal is purely of question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by Appellate Authority as well as Appellate Tribunal. An income tax appeal can be admitted only on substantial question of law, involved in the appeal and in our view, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, hence it is dismissed in limine. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. /KKC/ Certificate: All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →