PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SH. PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 57/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Smt. Kalawati Sharma, C-42, Gokul Path, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 58/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma, C-42, Gokul Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. for Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 17/05/2022 Both these appeals have been filed by the revenue. At the very outset, it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the revenue that similar controversy has already been decided by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 06.04.2022 passed in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.22/2021 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Sanjay Chhabra. He has prayed to decided the instant appeals in the same terms as

(2 of 3) [ITA-57/2021] observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Chhabra (supra). He submitted that the present appeals pertain to issue of Penny Stock. In the order dated 06.04.2022 passed in the case of Sanjay Chhabra (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in (2011) 1 SCC 673, as to what would be substantial question of law, only demolishes the case of the appellant herein because on principles, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as contained in Para 19 to 23 thereof, present is not a case where the finding of the Tribunal suffers from ignorance of any material evidence or based on no evidence much less “wrong inference drawn from proved facts by erroneous application of law” or “where the Tribunal has wrongly cast the burden of proof. The argument advanced on the basis of the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra), does not apply to the facts of the present case at all. The Tribunal’s findings are based on material placed on record. The aspect of human probability, in the present case, only goes against the Revenue because in the

present

case,

raid

was conducted and in that process, statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, which was, later on, retracted by the Assessee. In a situation like this, where the office premises are sealed for many days and during that period, a statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal’s view that only the basis of such retracted statement, addition could not be justified without any other material admissible in evidence, warrants no interference as it is not a substantial question of law” In view of the admission made by learned counsel for the revenue as also in light of the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay

(3 of 3) [ITA-57/2021] Chhabra (supra), we are of the view that these appeals do not involve any substantial questions of law. Thus, the appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J JKP/5-6