C.I.T. JDR. vs. TARUN SHARMA C/O M/S JAIDCO IND.

ITR/408/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032483199530 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning assessment year 1986-87. The assessee, Shri Tarun Sharma, derives income from commission and interest. During a search and seizure operation on his father's premises on July 1, 1987, the assessee's car was found. The assessee's father offered an additional income of Rs. 40,000/- for unexplained investment in a car and scooter. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's explanation for the car's purchase and added Rs. 40,000/- for unexplained investment in the car. This addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the finding recorded by the appellate authority, which was upheld by the Tribunal, was a pure finding of fact. The Tribunal had observed that the search was conducted on July 1, 1987, while the car was purchased on November 25, 1985. Based on this factual appreciation, the Tribunal concluded that the addition on account of the car was not justified, as there was no unexplained income during the relevant year. The revenue's counsel could not persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the Tribunal's appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, the deletion of the addition was not held to be illegal. The question referred was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the assessee's statement recorded during the search and seizure operation under section 132(1) in the case of his father, offering additional income of Rs. 40,000/- on account of unexplained investment in a car/scooter, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Dy.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000/-? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 132(1) and the addition of income). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the assessee's statement during the search operation, where his father offered additional income for unexplained investment in a car/scooter, justified the addition. They contended that the Tribunal erred in upholding the deletion of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.408 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.408 of 1995 Date of decision:30.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ....Petitioner versus Shri Tarun sharma C/o M/s Jaidco industries, Jalandhar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue. Mr. SK Mukhi, Advocate, for the assessee.

JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 25.2.1994 in ITA No.825(ASR)/1993, for the assessment year 1986-87:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the assessee's statement, recorded during the course of search and seizure operation under section 132(1) in the case of father of assessee offering additional income of Rs.40,000/- on account of unexplained investment in Car/Scooter, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Dy.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.40,000/-?”

The assessee is deriving income from commis

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 132(1)

All 795 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →