SANJEEV KUMAR PANDHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT-I

ITA/672/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071774200510 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that there was a difference in investment to the extent of Rs. 1,18,000/-, and the investment in the construction of the chimney was not proved to the satisfaction of the AO, even considering the availability of bricks. The Tribunal had reduced the addition from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 1,18,000/-. The High Court found this to be a matter of appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal had also rejected the revenue's plea for addition on account of the sale of bricks by the assessee's brother, as it was considered in the context of investment in the chimney. The court found the assessee's contention to be in the realm of appreciation of evidence, and thus, no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjeev Kumar Pandhi, filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2000-01. A survey under Section 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on the assessee's business premises, during which an inventory of stocks was prepared. The assessee admitted incomplete goods and registers and an investment of Rs. 3,80,000/- in April/May 1999 for constructing an Air Pollution Control Device (APCD). The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee could not justify this investment from declared income and made an addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- based on the assessee's surrender. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, reducing the addition to Rs. 1,18,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,18,000/- towards investment in the construction of an Air Pollution Control Device (APCD), despite the assessee explaining the source of the investment? (Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Assessee's contention: The source of investment was duly explained in the capital statement filed before the AO and accepted by authorities below. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Smt. PK Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570, stating that discretion under Section 69 can only be exercised if the explanation is unsatisfactory. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee's specific ground of appeal concerning depreciation on assets, which involved a question of law, on the basis that it was not taken before the authorities below, despite the omission of Section 34(1) entitling depreciation under Section 32(1) read with Section 29? Assessee's contention: Particulars of assets were furnished to the AO, and omission of Section 34(1) made the assessee statutorily entitled to depreciation. The ground involved a question of law based on facts on record. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in not accepting the assessee's reflected sales and arbitrarily substituting an estimated figure, despite appreciating there was no suppression of sales and no cognizance of a retracted agreement to be assessed at Rs. 4 lacs? Assessee's contention: No suppression of sales occurred, and a retracted agreement to be assessed at Rs. 4 lacs should not be considered. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133,Section 69,Section 34(1),Section 32(1),Section 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITA No.672 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.672 of 2005 Date of decision:10.10.2006 Sanjeev Kumar Pandhi ....Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Ravish Sood, Advocate, for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 28.7.2005 in ITA No.84 (ASR)/2004, in respect of assessment year 2000- 01, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining an addition of Rs.1,18,000/- towards investment in construction of 'Air Pollution Control Device', despite appreciating that the source of the said investment stood duly explained by the assessee and accepted by the authorities below?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the assessee's 'specific ground of appeal' which involved adjudication upon a '

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 133

All 97 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →