COMMI. OF IT-I, LUDHIANA vs. SHEFALI SONI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/90/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095806201111 April 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting the liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against an order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, in ITA No. 1219/CHD/2004. The assessment year in question was 1996-97. The ITAT had dismissed the appeal of the revenue, deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits and unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated but was implied to be below the threshold for appeal based on subsequent submissions.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits and unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, by relying on decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar and CIT Vs. Anupam Kapoor, and its own order in ACIT Vs. Sh. Jagmohan Singh & Family, despite the facts of the cases being different. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in dismissing the revenue's appeal, ignoring a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shree Paul Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer which was in favor of the Department. 3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal were perverse and against the evidence on record, thus unsustainable in law. The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in its findings and relied on distinguishable precedents. The respondent-assessee's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their position was that the ITAT's order was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus Smt. Shefali Soni ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 1219/CHD/2004, for the assessment year 1996-97, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-revenue in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits and addition of Rs. 27,232/- made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 by relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar 218 CTR (Del) 291 and CIT Vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 REEMA SAINI 2016.04.28 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITA No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) -2- (P&H) relied by on its own order in the case of ACIT Vs. Sh. Jagmohan Singh & Family (supra) ignoring the fact that the facts of the two cases are different? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-revenue ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided the same issue in favour of the Department in the case of Shree Paul Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra)? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of Tribunal are perverse and against the evidence on record thus unsustainable in law? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.28 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →