Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 11 vs. M/s Godavari Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.

PDF · subscribers

TAXC/151/2017HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01010585201715 November 2018Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the tax appeals. This conclusion was based on the concurrent findings of fact by the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeal) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the Assessing Authority had created tax liability primarily due to the assessee's initial failure to produce evidence regarding some investors, specifically bank statements. However, these statements were later produced before the Appellate Authority, and their authenticity was not in question. Consequently, the Appellate Authority accepted the position and set aside the Assessing Authority's order. This finding of fact was affirmed by the ITAT. Therefore, the High Court found no legal infirmity in the orders of the appellate authorities that would necessitate interference in the tax appeal. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, were filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, against M/s Pushpak Merchants Pvt. Ltd., M/s Godavari Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Rose Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The appeals challenged orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which affirmed the findings of the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeal). The core of the tax liability imposed by the Assessing Authority stemmed from the assessee's failure to produce evidence regarding some investors, specifically bank statements. However, these statements were subsequently produced before the Appellate Authority, whose authenticity was not disputed. The Appellate Authority accepted these statements and set aside the Assessing Authority's order, a finding later affirmed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the tax appeal, given the concurrent findings of fact by the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeal) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, particularly concerning the acceptance of bank statements as evidence of investors. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's observation implies that the assessee successfully presented evidence (bank statements) before the appellate authorities, which were accepted. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's appeal is based on the premise that there is a legal infirmity in the orders of the appellate authorities that warrants interference. The revenue likely argued that the initial failure of the assessee to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer should have led to the disallowance, and the subsequent production of evidence before the Appellate Authority was insufficient or improperly considered.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 148 of 2017 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus M/s Pushpak Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent with TAXC No. 151 of 2017 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus M/s Godavari Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent with TAXC No. 153 of 2017 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus M/s Rose Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building, M.G. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Rohit Tiwari and Shri Vinay Kumar Jain, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 16.11.2018

Heard counsel for the Revenue and counsel for the Respondent.

No question of law as such arises for consideration in the tax appeal, especially when there are concurrent finding of facts by the Income Tax Commissioner

2 (Appeal) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

We have also noticed that the only reason why the Assessing Authority creating tax liability was failure on the part of the assessee to produce evidence with regard to some of the investors which was by way of a Bank statement.

However, those statements were produced before the Appellate Authority authenticity of which was not in question or doubt, therefore, the Appellate Authority accepted the position and set aside the order of the Assessing Authority. Such finding of fact was affirmed given by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the two orders which needs interference in the tax appeal.

The appeals stand dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge

Brijmohan

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →