C.I.T. JDR. vs. SARWAN SINGH CONTRACTOR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/95/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035072199622 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,83,570/- made on account of cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that an identical issue had been examined in a previous case, ITA No. 512 of 2005 (CIT (Central) Ludhiana v. Smt. Santosh Jain Prop. M/s Jain Steel Inds. Mandi Gobindgarh), decided on August 10, 2006. In that case, the question was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229. Therefore, the present reference was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jalandhar, is the petitioner, and Sarwan Singh Contractor, Ludhiana, is the respondent. The assessment year in question is 1984-85. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, passed an order on June 19, 1995, in ITA No. 520 of 1990. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is considering a reference arising from this ITAT order. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's books of account and made an addition based on a net profit rate of total contract receipts. An additional amount was also added for cash payments made in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(Appeals) upheld these additions. The ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 1,83,570/- made on account of cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). The amount in dispute is Rs. 1,83,570/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 1,83,570/- made on account of cash payments in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that once the assessment was made by estimating the income using a net profit rate of 10%, there was no need to delve into the entries in the books of account. Making an addition on account of cash payments would amount to taxing the income twice. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the addition made on account of cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). The revenue relied on the AO's action of making the addition and the upholding by the CIT(A). The revenue did not present any specific arguments beyond what was implied by the reference and the initial assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.95 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.95 of 1996 Date of decision:22.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ....Petitioner versus Sarwan Singh Contractor, Ludhiana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 19.6.1995 in ITA No.520 of 1990, for the assessment year 1984-85:-

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting an addition of Rs.1,83,570/- made on account of cash payments in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and assessed income by adopting net profit rate of total contract receipts. Addition was also made on account of cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). This was upheld by the CIT(A). Before the Tribunal, application of gross profit rate of 10% was not challenged by the assessee but it was submitted that once assessment had been made as per estimate by applying net profit rate of 10%, there was no need to go into the entries in the books of account and addition on that account would be taking the income twice.

ITR No.95 of 1996 2

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the findings recorded. We find that identical issue has been examined by this Court in ITA No.512 of 2005, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. Smt.Santosh Jain Prop.M/s Jain Steel Inds.Mandi Gobindgarh, decided on 10.8.2006 and the question has been answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, following judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229. Accordingly, the question referred in the present case is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 22, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →