SUDHIR BHASIN & VIJAY KUMAR BH vs. CIT PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITR/69/1998HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038048199802 July 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arose for determination. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal had categorically concluded that the assessee-applicant did not satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 30,000/-, leading to the addition of Rs. 15,000/- in the hands of one assessee and Rs. 15,000/- in the hands of his brother, Shri Vijay Kumar. The Tribunal confirmed this addition, and the High Court found nothing on record to suggest these additions were unwarranted or perverse. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal's finding was that the addition of Rs. 9,603/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of household expenses was justified. Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that there was no room to conclude that any question of law requiring determination by the court had arisen. Consequently, the questions were returned unanswered.

What were the facts?

This case involves Income Tax Reference Applications (ITR Nos. 69 and 69A of 1998) filed by the assessees, Sudhir Bhasin and Vijay Kumar Bhasin, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's consolidated order, dated 28.7.1997, pertained to Income Tax Appeals (ITAs) Nos. 1573/91 and 1574/91, concerning the assessment year 1989-90. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was asked to decide questions of law referred by the ITAT under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute centers on additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 15,000/- on account of alleged advance received by the assessees from Sh. Nishan Singh? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 9,603/- in case of each assessee as unexplained cash found during search on 5.5.1988? Assessee's Contentions: The assessees, through their counsel Mr. Rajiv Sharma, sought to challenge the ITAT's findings on these additions. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, supported the ITAT's order. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments but implies they were in favor of upholding the additions. The judgment does not record specific arguments for either side beyond the framing of the questions and the court's subsequent reasoning.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No. 69 and 69A of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: 11.9.2007 Sudhir Bhasin & Vijay Kumar Bhasin …Applicants Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the assessee-applicants. Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the revenue-respondent. M.M. KUMAR, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), by exercising its power under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) has referred the following questions of law, which are stated to have emerged from consolidated order dated 28.7.1997, in I.T.A. Nos. 1573/91 and 1574/91, in respect of assessment year 1989-90:- “i). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 15,000/- on account of alleged advance received by the assessees from Sh. Nishan Singh? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 9,603/- in case of each assessee as I.T.R. No. 69 of 1998 unexplained cash found during search on 5.5.1988? A perusal of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal shows that it has been categorically concluded that the assessee-applicant did not satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 30,000/- and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in taxing the amount of Rs. 15,000/- in his hand and Rs. 15,000/- in the hands of his brother Shri Vijay Kumar. The addition was accordingly confirmed. There is nothing on record to suggest that the additions are unwarranted or perverse. Likewise, in respect of addition of Rs. 9,603/- the finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of household expenses was justified. Therefore, there is no room to conclude that any question of law would arise for determination of this Court. Accordingly, the questions are returned unanswered. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) September 11, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →