PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL HUF

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 56/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Deepak Kumar Agarwal HUF, 47, Ajmer Road, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 10/05/2022 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 222/JP/2020 for assessment year 2014- 15. 2. By the present IT appeal substantial question of law proposed:- “I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law the ITAT is justified in not considering the facts unearthed during the Investigation proceedings by the Department on the basis of which addition of Rs. 1883088/- was made by the AO and the same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)? II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT is justified in not considering the facts unearthed during the Investigation proceedings by the Department that the assessee was indulged in suspicious transaction of

(2 of 4) [ITA-56/2021] accommodation entry to camouflage unaccounted income as Long Term Capital Gain? III) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned ITAT is justified in not considering the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suman Poddar Vs. ITO, in the case of NRA Iron & Steels and in the case of Sumati Dayal on the basis of which the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal of the appellant?” 3. Learned ITAT in impugned order held as under:- “We therefore find that the same facts were considered in the above cited cases regarding purchase of shares of M/s. Careful Projects Advisory Ltd which was subsequently merged with M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. and after analyzing the relevant documentary evidence which includes purchase bill, payment consideration through bank, dematerialization of shares, allotment of the shares amalgamated new entity in lieu of earlier company, the Tribunal has held that in the absence of any contrary evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus Long Term Capital Gain and reliance on the statement recorded by the Investigation Wing without providing an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principal of natural justice. The Tribunal has also followed the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also upheld the finding of the ld. CIT (A) and this Tribunal when the assessee produced all the relevant details and evidence in support of the transaction of purchase and sale of shares. The ratio and findings of the aforesaid decision squarely applies in the instant case where the assessee produced all the relevant details and evidence in support of the transaction of purchase and sale of shares and where the said statement of a third person relied upon by the AO was not provided to the assessee inspite of specific request and the assessee came to know of the contents of the said statement only on receipt of the assessment order which is a complete violation of principal of natural justice.” 4. On perusal of findings arrived at by the learned ITAT, we are of the view that the present appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Learned ITAT has specifically held that the assessee has produced all the relevant documentary evidence to establish genuineness of the transaction and there is

(3 of 4) [ITA-56/2021] no contrary evidence to doubt the correctness of the evidences produced by the assessee and therefore treating the transaction of purchase and sale as sham is not justified. Further, learned ITAT has also relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court reported in 2018 (99) taxmann.com 451 (Raj.) titled as Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal, wherein learned ITAT has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench involving the same facts wherein the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. It is held time and again by the Apex Court qua the admission of appeal on substantial questions of law, more specifically in the case of Commissioner of Customs-I Vs. Aasu Exim Pvt. Ltd.:(2018) 16 SCC 591 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anit Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors.:2017 (349) E.L.T 193 (SC), wherein 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 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.” 6. On perusal of the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court is of the view that if the learned ITAT, on consideration of material and relevant facts had arrived at the conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be

(4 of 4) [ITA-56/2021] allowed to rest even if this court is inclined to take another view of the matter. 7. In the case at hand, logical reasonings were given by the learned ITAT and there is no gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice. 8. In the similar kind of facts and circumstances, 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 has held that no substantial questions of law are involved in the matter. Following the same, this court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the matter and therefore, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. 9. All pending applications are also dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J Pooja /14