CIT vs. SHRUTI FASTENERS LTD

ITA - 1199 / 2011HC Delhi04 November 20111 pages

For Petitioner: SURUCHII AGGARWAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the question raised was purely factual. Regarding the valuation of zip fasteners, the Court found that the CIT(A) had examined the factual aspects and evidence and arrived at a valuation of Rs. 37.96 per meter, which was upheld by the ITAT. The Court stated that the reasons and grounds mentioned by the two appellate authorities were not perverse and that it was a reasonable view on the facts, material, and evidence. Therefore, the reasoning did not require interference in an appeal under Section 260A. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shruti Fasteners Ltd., surrendered an amount of Rs. 35.10 lacs as additional income for the financial year 2006-07 during survey proceedings. The dispute arose concerning the valuation of zip fasteners. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the value at Rs. 59.48 per meter. The assessee contended this valuation was excessive and unsubstantiated. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reassessed the value at Rs. 37.96 per meter after examining the facts and evidence. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal before the High Court is filed by the Revenue (CIT) against the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the question raised is purely factual? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the valuation of zip fasteners at Rs. 37.96 per meter by the CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT, as opposed to the AO's valuation of Rs. 59.48 per meter, is a reasonable view on the facts, material, and evidence, warranting interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . . . ITA 1199/2011 . . . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. . . . versus . . . SHRUTI FASTENERS LTD ..... Respondent . Through None . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . . . O R D E R . 04.11.2011 . . . We are not inclined to entertain the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the question raised is purely factual. . 2. The Assessing Officer noticed that the during the survey proceedings, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs.35.10 lacs for taxation as additional income for financial year 2006-07. There is no dispute about the same. The dispute pertains to value of zip fastener mentioned at serial No.26 and 47 and 154. The Assessing Officer had taken the value of the zip fasteners of Rs.59.48 per meter. The assessee?s contention was that this figure was on the higher side and not substantiated by any material or evidence. After examining the factual and aspects and evidence the CIT(A) valued the zip fasteners at Rs.37.96 per meter. The said order has been upheld by ITAT. The reasons and grounds mentioned by the two appellate authorities are not perverse. It is a reasonable view on the facts, material and evidence. The reasoning does not require interference in an appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. . 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA,J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . NOVEMBER 04, 2011 . vld . . . $ 20 . . .

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →