COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS

ITA - 471 / 2008HC Delhi15 May 20081 pages

For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the ITAT. It was not possible for the High Court to upset the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the Assessee commenced its business of vending liquor w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. Consequently, the capital was liable to be taxed in the hands of the Association of Persons and not in the hands of the Assessee. The High Court did not provide any specific reasoning beyond stating the inability to upset concurrent findings and the absence of a substantial question of law. No operative directions were issued, as the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 6th July, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'A', in ITA Nos. 1187 to 1189/Del/2003 for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT had concurrently found that the Assessee commenced its liquor vending business on 1st April, 1997. Although contributions for license and security deposit were made in March 1997, the business operations began later. The High Court noted that it was not possible to upset these concurrent findings regarding the taxation of capital in the hands of the Association of Persons, not the Assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can upset the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT that the Assessee commenced its business of vending liquor w.e.f. 1st April, 1997, and consequently, whether the capital was liable to be taxed in the hands of the Association of Persons and not the Assessee? (Question of law/mixed law and fact). The Revenue argued that the concurrent findings of the lower authorities regarding the commencement date of business and the consequent taxability of capital should be upheld. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The High Court considered whether a substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 15.05.2008 . . Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. for the Appellant. . . + ITA No. 471/2008 . The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 6th July, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?A? (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1187 to 1189 /Del/2003 relevant for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have come to a concurrent finding that the Assessee commenced its business of vending liquor only w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. The contribution for obtaining the license and for making the security deposit may have been made in the month of March 1997 but the fact still remains that the business was carried out only w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. In this view of the matter, it is not possible for us to upset the concurrent findings arrived at by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal that the capital was liable to be taxed in the hands of Association of persons and not in the hands of the Assessee. . . ITA No. 471/2008 page 1 of 2 . . No substantial question of law arises in this regard. Dismissed. . MADAN B. LOKUR, J. . . . MAY 15, 2008 MANMOHAN SINGH, J. J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No. 471/2008 page 2 of 2 . . (34)

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →