PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ASHNUTH GOYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/124/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02098324202324 January 2024Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in this case, is bound by the previous decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Ritu Agarwal. The Court noted that the substantial question of law concerning the eligibility of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has already been decided and is no longer res integra. The Court also referred to another Division Bench decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Smt. Seema Agarwal, where appeals were dismissed in light of the Ritu Agarwal judgment. Therefore, following these precedents, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur (Revenue) against the assessee, Ashnuth Goyal. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order under challenge is the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The procedural history indicates that the Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision. The learned counsel for the Revenue concedes that the issue raised in the present appeal has already been decided against the Revenue by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Ritu Agarwal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law proposed by the Revenue involves a substantial question of law which has not been answered or on which there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution, considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors. (2017). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel fairly submits that the issue raised and the question proposed in this appeal have already been answered against the Revenue by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Ritu Agarwal. The Revenue relies on this precedent. Assessee's Contention: No specific arguments are recorded for the assessee, but the appeal is decided in their favor based on the precedent cited by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JP:4212-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 124/2023 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Income Tax Department, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Ashnuth Goyal, 141, Vidyut Nagar-A, Prince Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment / Order 24/01/2024 Heard. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue would fairly submit that issue raised and the question proposed in this appeal already stands answered against the revenue vide order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2021). In the aforesaid decision, after taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, the question of law was answered as below:- “7. Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors.:2017 (349) E.L.T 193 (SC), wherein the question of admission of an appeal, on substantial question of law was considered and it was held as under:-

[2024:RJ-JP:4212-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-124/2023] “(i) The question raised must involve a substantial question of law which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution. (ii) If the Tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court is inclined to take another view of the matter. (iii) The Tribunal had acted in gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice.” A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Smt. Seema Agarwal (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 62/2021 and other connected appeal) observed as under:- “2. Mr. Singhi, learned counsel has submitted that the Revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition, though no stay/interim protection/order has been passed therein.

3.

Considering the said submissions, we dismiss both the Income Tax Appeals in light of the judgments in Ritu Agarwal(supra) and Ajay Agarwal(supra) in same terms against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” In view of the above, the substantial question of law as proposed insofar as eligibility of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned stands decided and is no longer res integra. Therefore, this appeal is also dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Mohita /54

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →