THE PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEMA KANWAR NARENDRA SINGH RATHOD,

ITA/99/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02054884202419 August 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that considering the ITAT had only remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine whether an addition could be made in relation to an amount already surrendered by the husband (which was before the Settlement Commissioner), there was no substantial question of law, or more importantly, no question of law of public importance, arising from the ITAT's order. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the addition or the surrender. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The issue before the ITAT concerned whether an addition could be made in relation to an amount that had already been surrendered by the husband of the assessee. This surrender was in a case that had been placed before the Settlement Commissioner. The assessee is Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The appeals are filed against the ITAT's order of remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present appeals as there is no question of law, or more specifically, no question of law of public importance, arising from the ITAT's order. (This is framed based on the High Court's observation in paragraph 1 of the judgment). Assessee's contention: Not recorded as the High Court dismissed the appeals on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law. The assessee did not argue on the merits of the ITAT's order. Revenue's contention: The revenue, as the appellant, implicitly contended that there was a substantial question of law warranting the High Court's intervention, as they filed the appeal. However, specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:32403-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 99/2024 The Principal Commisioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005. ----Appellant Versus Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, 207, Gomes Defence Colony, Avenue-4, Jaipur(Pan/gir No. Aaspr0262M). ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 101/2024 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur- 302005 ----Appellant Versus Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, 207, Gomes Defence Colony, Avenue-4, Jaipur (Pan/gir No. Aaspr0262M) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Miittal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 19/08/2025

Considering that the ITAT has only remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine whether addition can be done in relation to amount which has already been surrendered by the husband in the case which has been placed before the

[2025:RJ-JP:32403-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-99/2024] Settlement Commissioner, we do not find any question of law more of any public importance in the present appeals.

The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J RAHUL MIRKHANI/8-9

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →