COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-VIII vs. BHAVENDRA JHA

ITA - 155 / 2013HC Delhi03 April 20131 pages

For Petitioner: ABHISHEK MARATHA

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arises for its consideration. The Tribunal had not interfered with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had made an estimate of the income of the respondent-assessee. The Court found no material before it that remotely suggested any perversity on the part of the Tribunal in concurring with the estimate made by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate court will not interfere with an ITAT's order affirming a CIT(A)'s estimated income unless there is a substantial question of law or perversity in the finding.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Delhi-VIII, filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The ITAT's order was in ITA No. 2529/Del./2010 concerning the assessment year 2006-07. The High Court heard the counsel for the Revenue and examined the case papers. The High Court noted that the ITAT had not interfered with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who had made an estimate of the income of the respondent-assessee, Bhavendra Jha. The High Court found no material suggesting any perversity in the ITAT's concurrence with the CIT(A)'s estimate.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order concerning the assessment year 2006-07, which upheld the CIT(A)'s estimated income of the assessee. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue contended that a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in not interfering with the CIT(A)'s order which made an estimate of the respondent-assessee's income. The Revenue's appeal implicitly challenges the validity or correctness of this estimation process and the ITAT's affirmation of it.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 155/2013 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-VIII . ..... Appellant . Through Mr Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel with Ms Anshul Sharma, Adv. . . . versus . . . BHAVENDRA JHA ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 03.04.2013 . . . This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.05.2012 in ITA No.2529/Del./2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in respect of the assessment year 2006-07. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and have examined papers filed before us. We are of the view that no question of law, what to speak of any substantial question of law, arises for our consideration in this appeal. The Tribunal has not interfered with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who made an estimate of income by the respondent- assessee. We have no material before us which even remotely suggest that there was any perversity on the part of the Tribunal in concurring with the estimate made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . APRIL 03, 2013 . vld . . . $ 1 .

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →