Deputy Commissioner Of Incom Tax vs. M/s Pushpak Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vandana Building
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the tax appeals. This was primarily due to 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 solely on the ground that the assessees failed to produce evidence regarding some investors, specifically bank statements. However, these statements were later produced before the Appellate Authority, and their authenticity was not questioned. Consequently, the Appellate Authority accepted the assessees' 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 warrant interference in the tax appeal. The appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeals before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at 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 issue revolved around the Assessing Authority's creation of tax liability due to the assessees' failure to produce evidence regarding some investors, specifically bank statements. These statements were subsequently produced before the Appellate Authority, whose authenticity was not disputed.
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, concerning the validity of the tax liability imposed by the Assessing Authority. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessees. The High Court's observation implies that the assessees successfully presented evidence (bank statements) before the Appellate Authority, which led to the setting aside of the Assessing Authority's order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, appealed the ITAT's decision, implying disagreement with the appellate authorities' acceptance of the assessees' evidence and the subsequent setting aside of the tax liability. The Revenue likely argued that the initial failure to produce evidence before the Assessing Authority warranted the tax imposition.
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 1. Heard counsel for the Revenue and counsel for the Respondent. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The appeals stand dismissed. Sd/- Sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
