PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHUGH

ITA/27/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02015714202306 October 2023Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2. The Court relied on its previous decisions in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2021 (Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ritu Agarwal) and D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2021 (Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ajay Agarwal), which were decided on May 10, 2022. In those cases, the Court had observed that the ITAT had logically dealt with the questions of fact and law involved through a reasoned order, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose. The Court reiterated the principle from the Supreme Court's judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, that if the Tribunal, on consideration of material and relevant facts, arrives at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, it must be allowed to rest. The Court found no gross violation of principles of natural justice or failure of justice in the ITAT's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in the same terms as the cited precedents, in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Shri Manohar Lal Chugh. The appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's counsel conceded that the controversy in this matter is identical to that in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2021 (Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ritu Agarwal) and D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2021 (Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ajay Agarwal), which were decided by a coordinate bench on May 10, 2022. The revenue has also filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, but no stay or interim order has been passed therein. The High Court is considering the appeal based on these submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Does a substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the order passed by the ITAT? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee relies on the decision of a coordinate bench in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2021 (Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ritu Agarwal) and D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2021 (Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ajay Agarwal), decided on May 10, 2022. This decision held that the ITAT had logically dealt with questions of fact and law by way of a reasoned order, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose. The assessee also refers to the Supreme Court judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors. (2017) which outlines criteria for admitting an appeal on a substantial question of law, emphasizing that if the Tribunal's conclusion is a possible one based on material facts, it should be allowed to rest. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition against the coordinate bench's decision in similar matters, but no interim relief has been granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2023:RJ-JP:27242-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 27/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.-302005) ----Appellant Versus Shri Manohar Lal Chugh, C 260 Hans Marg Malviya Nagar Jaipur (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohan Chattar & Ms. Satwika Jha for Mr. Siddharth Ranka HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 06/10/2023

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before the Court that the matter under consideration involving same controversy was decided by way of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.54/2021-Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ritu Agarwal & D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.60/2021-Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Vs. Ajay Agarwal, vide order dated 10.05.2022, wherein it was observed as follows:- "

On perusal of the order of learned ITAT and reasonings given therein this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law, formulated above does not arise as learned ITAT has logically dealt

[2023:RJ-JP:27242-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-27/2023] &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:- “(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 are solution. (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." 8.We are of the view that learned ITAT has passed the order on consideration of material and relevant facts, logical conclusion has been arrived at and the same must be allowed to rest. There is no gross violation of principles of natural justice or failure of justice, no error has crept in the order impugned of learned ITAT. The Coordinate Bench of this court in D. B. IT Appeal No.22/2021 titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Vs. Shri Sanjay Chhabra, in the similar facts and circumstances has already taken a view that in the appeal at hand under Section 260A of the Act no substantial question of law arises.

In the light of above discussions, the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act does not call for interference and is hereby dismissed as no substantial question of law arises worth consideration."

Learned counsel has submitted that the Revenue has filed a Special Leave Petition, though no stay/interim protection/order has been passed therein.

[2023:RJ-JP:27242-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-27/2023]

Considering the said submissions, we dismiss the Income Tax Appeal 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.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ Anil Sharma/ Pooja /56

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →