C.I.T.UDAIPUR vs. UDAI LAL ANJANA

ITA/85/2009HC RajasthanRJHC01035131200908 January 2010Author: JAGDISH BHALLA,DINESH MAHESHWARI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the proposed question of law was based on appreciation of findings of fact. The Court was of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and affirmed by the Tribunal (ITAT) that the interest payment made by the assessee was for business purposes and allowable under Sections 28 to 36 of the Act, and not for capital expenditure or personal purposes, is essentially a finding of fact based on appreciation of material on record. Therefore, no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed summarily.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur (the Revenue) challenges a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had confirmed an order of the CIT(A) which deleted an addition of Rs. 51,90,896/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The addition was on account of disallowance of interest payment. The Revenue contended that these interest payments were not part of the audited books of account of the business. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal was filed before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal is justified in confirming the non-speaking order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 51,90,896/- on account of disallowance of interest payment which were not part of the audited books of account of the business? (Question of law or mixed law and fact, concerning allowability of interest payment under Sections 28 to 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) could not substantiate his arguments before the Court regarding the proposed question of law. The Revenue argued that the interest payment was not part of the audited books of account of the business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28,Section 36

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.85/2009 Date of Order :: 08-01-2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant.

This income tax appeal arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which has been argued on behalf of the appellant. Though there is no substantial question of law involved, yet the following question of law has been proposed by the appellant- “(i)Whether in the facts and in the present circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the learned Tribunal is justified in confirming the non-speaking order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.51,90,896/- on account of disallowance of interest payment which were not part of audited books of account of the business?”

Learned counsel for the appellant could not substantiate his arguments before this Court about the aforesaid question of law. We are of the considered opinion that the proposed question of law is nothing but based on appreciation of findings of fact.

We are also of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →