PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I T-1 JAIPUR vs. M/S JAIPUR THAR GRAMIN BANK

ITA/154/2016HC RajasthanRJHC02082162201604 August 20162 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal in the present appeal. The Court referred to its previous judgment in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. In that judgment, the Court had found that the assessee cannot suffer for the inaction of Revenue authorities and that the Assessing Officer ought not to have disallowed the claim merely because the Commissioner had not granted approval of the Gratuity Scheme. Once the assessee fulfilled the conditions for approval by creating a trust with LIC and depositing money, the Tribunal was justified in holding the claim as just, proper, and allowable. The Court reiterated that the Tribunal's finding was a finding of fact based on material and evidence, and no perversity was found. Therefore, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the High Court had previously dealt with the same issue in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. In that prior judgment dated 12.07.2016, the High Court had held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the allowability of a claim, which was previously decided by this Court in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implied by the High Court's prior judgment that the claim was just, proper, and allowable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel conceded that the High Court had already answered the self-same question in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the Revenue did not press for a separate adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O.R.D.E.R D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.154/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank Date of Order: 04/08/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. Anuroop Singhi Adv., for appellant.

Instant income tax appeal u/Sec.260A of the Income Tax Act (in short, ' the Act') is directed against the order dt. 12.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal'). It relates to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that this Court in the assesse's own case, in the earlier assessment years for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 vide judgment dt. 12.07.2016 in DB. ITA No.131/2012 CIT Vs. M/s. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, has already answered the self same question and held that no substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal.

This Court in the assessee's own case for the assessment years (supra) held as under:- “The assessee cannot suffer for the inaction of the 2 Revenue authorities and the AO ought not to have disallowed the claim merely because the Commissioner has not granted approval of the Gratuity Scheme. Once the assessee fulfills the condition laid down for approval having created a trust with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and it is not the case of Revenue that assessee has not deposited money in terms of creation of the trust, therefore, in our view the Tribunal on such facts is well justified in holding that the claim is just, proper and allowable. A just and reasonable claim deserves to be allowed. We find that both the appellate authorities have found it allowable on the facts found and is essentially a finding of fact based on material and evidence on record. No substantial question of law can be said to emerge out of the order of the Tribunal, so as to call for interference of this Court. We also do not find any perversity in order impugned. The appeals are dismissed.”

Since this Court has already come to a finding of fact that the claim allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper, and there is no perversity. No substantial question of law emerge for our consideration in the present appeal, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. (J.K. RANKA), J. (AJAY RASTOGI), J. S Kumawat/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →