M.R. SINGHAL vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/265/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051409200416 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court affirmed the findings of the ITAT on both issues. Regarding the disallowance of expenses (Issue 1), the Tribunal had found that the assessee failed to provide any details, bills, or vouchers to substantiate the claimed expenses, particularly salaries. While the Assessing Officer (AO) had allowed a deduction of Rs. 1,35,000/- for assessment year 1995-96, this did not set a precedent for all years. The court agreed that in the absence of evidence, the disallowance of expenses could not be held illegal. For the issue of undisclosed income (Issue 2), the Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 158BB(1)(ca), if the due date for filing a return had expired and no return was filed, the income declared in a subsequent return filed under Section 139(4) would be treated as undisclosed income. The court agreed that even if a return is filed under Section 139(4), the consequence of not filing by the due date cannot be nullified. It further noted that no advance tax or self-assessment tax was paid, and the income declared and assessed far exceeded the taxable limit. Therefore, the income declared in the belated returns was correctly treated as undisclosed income. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri M.R. Singhal, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to the Block Assessment period from April 1, 1985, to December 21, 1995. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the assessee's premises on December 21, 1995. The assessee was earning commission income from encashing demand drafts. The assessee filed returns for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on October 3, 1996, after the search. The revenue treated the disclosed income as undisclosed income under Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,20,000/- for expenses across assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96, while Rs. 1,35,000/- was allowed for assessment year 1995-96.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was correct in disallowing the deduction of expenses amounting to Rs. 3,20,000/- for assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96, especially when a deduction of Rs. 1,35,000/- was allowed for assessment year 1995-96? (Question of law and fact, concerning deduction of expenses). 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was correct in upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) which declared the income for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 as undisclosed, overlooking the provisions of Section 139(4)? (Question of law, concerning undisclosed income and belated returns). Assessee's contentions: - For issue 1: The ITAT should have allowed the deduction of Rs. 3,20,000/- for expenses, given that Rs. 1,35,000/- was allowed for assessment year 1995-96. - For issue 2: The returns filed for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were within the time allowed under Section 139(4) of the Act, and therefore, should not be treated as undisclosed income under Section 158BB. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue opposed the assessee's submissions and supported the findings of the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(4),Section 158BB,Section 158BB(1)(ca),Section 158B(b),Section 158BB(1)(d),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITA No.265 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.265 of 2004 Date of decision: Shri M.R.Singhal, Ludhiana ....Appellant versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I(2) Ludhiana. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. SK Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the respondent.

JUDGMENT:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 'B', Chandigarh (for short, 'the ITAT') dated 1.7.2003 in IT (SS)A.No.2/Chandi/98, in respect of Block Assessment period from 1.4.1985 to 21.12.1995, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was right in not allowing the deduction of expenses to the tune of the composite amount nf Rs.3,20,000/- for various assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96, especially when it is an admitted fact that deduction of expenses to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- as claimed for the assessment year 1995-96 has allowed? ii) Whether i

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 139(4)

All 902 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →