PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SHASHI KANT KHETAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/79/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02036965201803 July 20183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the ITAT. The Court found that the ITAT had discussed each ground and made detailed observations on each issue, relying on different decisions. Consequently, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The appeal filed by the revenue was therefore dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT on each of the issues raised by the revenue, and the reasoning behind those findings, are not detailed in this judgment, as the High Court's decision is based on its agreement with the ITAT's overall conclusion that no substantial question of law arises.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III (the appellant/revenue) has filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, Shri Shashi Kant Khetan, and dismissed the appeal of the department. The assessment proceedings involved notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued to the assessee. The assessee was required to produce books of accounts, supporting evidences, bills of material purchased, and details of expenses debited to the Profit & Loss account for verification. The High Court has reviewed the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).

What were the issues?

The appellant (revenue) framed five substantial questions of law for determination by the High Court: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the full trading addition made after rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which was also confirmed by the CIT(A)? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,03,47,097/- on account of unexplained investment without considering the finding of facts mentioned in the assessment order? 3. Whether the ITAT was legally correct in deleting the entire addition of Rs.19,32,028/- made on account of suppressed contract receipts merely relying on additional evidence produced after the assessment stage, without considering the AO's comments in the remand report? 4. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.14,69,032/- on account of interest and bank charges, ignoring the findings of fact discussed in the assessment order? 5. (The fifth question is incomplete in the provided text.) The revenue's contentions are implicit in the framing of these questions, arguing that the ITAT erred in deleting the additions made by the AO. No arguments for the assessee are recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145(3),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 79/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Jaipur-Iii, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj Versus Shri Shashi Kant Khetan, M/s S.k. Khetan , H-3, Indra Nagar, Jhunjhunu Raj _. = zj , c: h 7x4 I X I ----Respondent . : %" '2 1 " ' 9 - .- $?a',- For Appellant(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek with Me ,% Arjun Singh e'r for Mr. Sarneer Jain ... *A, . 9- l- *.'L &-<+4it**U&" *r ,,$&\L' +-i",n, HON'BLE MR. JUST%~~&~EPESS~W SATYENDRA JHAVERI s,? a fb&itb&W&)& '(2,s is" *. HON'BLE MR.CJUSTT&E~~VEJA.~~KUMAR VYAS *.*& %*& - .* * 9. :%it% - i b$b* i 2 s3*6q+$$@:f'4 $7 5 . 3 P* *-&%;:* - , P",*%. '.*& ,. fbi.-8gudqment F.Y I- : - ,I 2 < : K*@.h'. C?,;>.J~*> '. 03/07/2018 $*4i"il" ,< 1 ,,, " " c !6t&'.",a?. .a Q ; Jgn,j .&!* o,, 1. By way of this appeal, *t$e appellant has assailed the 1 judgment and order y Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal o missed the appeal of the department. 2. Counsel for the a ~ p n e l l a , ~ ~ ~ ~ , h a s ~ ~ r a m e d following substantial +-f ;" ,"pi.. e . I-. .., .:i .. questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the full trading addition made after rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and sum quantum of which was confirmed by the CIT(A) also? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,03,47,097/- on account

of unexplained investment without considering the finding of facts mentioned in the assessment order? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was legally correct in deleting the entire addition of Rs.19,32,028/- made on account of suppressed contract receipts merely relying on the additional evidence produced after stage without considering the comments of the A 0 given in the remand report? 4. whet he,^ in,tti'e, facfs.ra~d-circumstances '$ n, * & * *i of th~~a-~,~sthe-Honlble $?A% wa,s justified in il.qwb In deleting the addition of ~s~f4,69,032/- on account of interest and - '?t$nk charges ignoring the finding of fa$& "discussed in the assessment order? .- -.< 5. Whether on the facts and in the'" ' 3. The facts of the elected for scrutiny. Co 143(2) was issued on 24.9.2012 which was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 5.9.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee. Vide such notice details relevant to the assessment were called for and the assessee was required to produce all books of accounts for verification alongwith supporting evidences in the form of bills of

(3 of 3) [ITA-79/2018] material purchased and various expenses debited to the P & L account. 4. We have gone through the order of A 0 as well as CIT(A). 5. The Tribunal while considering the matter has discussed each and every ground and thereafter, detail observation has been made on each issue relying on the different decisions. h.1 i..*# &,*-.. p 6. I n that view of4dfie matterIxweiia're, i,n *complete agreement p ' - q + * i 1 ' bd . <6-5r "W with the view,&aken by the tribunal, thereftreyno substantial i \56 \ .& question of;la'iw arises. -4, G i .&&.=* ."-& r 2% 7. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR Brijesh 9. (K.S. IHAVERI),J

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →