COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHROTTAM JAIN

ITA - 620 / 2010HC Delhi15 April 20101 pages

For Petitioner: SURUCHII AGGARWAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had returned concurrent findings of fact. These concurrent findings pertained to the quantification of undisclosed sales and the estimation of undisclosed investment at the starting point of the business. Because of these concurrent findings of fact, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal was consequently dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court found no basis for interference on the grounds presented.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appellant) is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 31.07.2009. The ITAT's order pertained to the block period 01.04.1988 to 24.09.1998. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the income of the assessee, Shrottam Jain (Respondent), for undisclosed profits and undisclosed investments. The assessee had admitted to these undisclosed profits and investments. The sole point of contention was the quantification of these undisclosed profits and investments, which were based on undisclosed sales, undisclosed purchases, and the profit rate adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the ITAT had concurrently decided on the quantification of undisclosed sales and the estimation of undisclosed investment at the business's starting point.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the quantification of undisclosed profits and investments, particularly concerning undisclosed sales, undisclosed purchases, and the adopted profit rate. The Appellant (Commissioner of Income-tax) argued that the ITAT's order should be considered, implying a challenge to the findings. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Appellant's specific arguments beyond stating that the appeal is directed against the ITAT's order. The Respondent (assessee) did not present any arguments as 'None' is recorded for their appearance. The core of the dispute, as stated in the facts, revolved around the quantification of undisclosed profits and investments, which were derived from undisclosed sales and purchases and the profit rate applied by the Assessing Officer.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 620/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal . versus . SHROTTAM JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN . O R D E R . . 15.04.2010 This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.07.2009 passed in IT(SS) A No.87/Del/2008 pertaining to the block period 01.04.1988 to 24.09.1998. The Assessing Officer had made additions on account of undisclosed profits and undisclosed investments. The assessee also admitted that there were undisclosed profits and undisclosed investments. The only issue was with regard to quantification of the undisclosed profits and investments. The undisclosed profit was based upon the undisclosed sales and undisclosed purchases, as also the rate of profit which was adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered the question of quantification of the undisclosed sale and estimation of undisclosed investment in the starting point of business. They have returned concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, no interference is called for. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 15, 2010 dutt . . 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →