C.I.T.BIKANER vs. JAGDISH DUDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/84/2009HC RajasthanRJHC01038104200812 April 2010Author: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,DINESH MAHESHWARI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal's order, which provided for a 35% reduction on the cost of construction of the building as estimated by the DVO and fixed agriculture expenses at 29%, was found to be not requiring interference. The High Court, in its order dated March 15, 2010, passed in similar appeals involving identical issues, had taken a view that supported the Tribunal's findings. Therefore, following its own previous decision, the High Court held that the present appeal filed by the Revenue also fails. The ratio decidendi is that when identical issues have been decided by the High Court in previous cases, subsequent appeals raising the same issues should be dismissed summarily, following the precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated March 14, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. The appeal pertains to the return of income filed by the assessee, Shri Jagdish Dudi, for the financial year 2004-2005. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the issues raised in this appeal were identical to those decided by the High Court in a batch of appeals led by D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 13/2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. Suresh Dudi), which included an appeal concerning the same assessee, Shri Jagdish Dudi, for the financial year 2003-2004.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal's order, which allowed a 35% reduction on the cost of construction of a building as estimated by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and treated agriculture expenses at 29%, is sustainable in law? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. However, the High Court's reasoning implies that the assessee would have supported the Tribunal's order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order allowing a 35% reduction on the cost of construction and setting agriculture expenses at 29% was erroneous. The Revenue's appeal was based on the grounds that the Tribunal's findings were not in accordance with the law. The Revenue relied on the High Court's previous decision in similar matters.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.84/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. Jagdish Dudi

::::

12th April 2010 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. SAPRE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.K.K.Bissa for the appellant. BY THE COURT: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) against the common order dated 14.03.2008 as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal') insofar relating to the return of income filed by the assessee Shri Jagdish Dudi for the financial year 2004-2005. The learned counsel for the appellant candidly submits that the questions sought to be raised in this appeal stand decided against the appellant for the view taken by this Court in the order dated 15.03.2010 as passed in the batch of appeals led by D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 13/2010: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. Suresh Dudi, which were preferred against the same order dated 14.03.2008, and which included the one (IT Appeal No. 74/2009) relating to the same assessee Shri Jagdish Dudi for the return of income as filed for the financial year 2003-2004. For the detailed reasons as appearing in the said order dated 15.03.2010, we are clearly of opinion that the Tribunal’s order providing 35% reduction on the cost of construction of the building as estimated by the DVO and putting the agriculture expenses at 29% does not call for interference in this appeal either. In view of what has been discussed above and following the said order dated 15.03.2010 passed in similar appeals involving identical issues, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

(A.M. SAPRE), J. MK

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →