ARUN MALIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 767 / 2007HC Delhi13 August 20071 pages

For Petitioner: PRAKASH KUMAR

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the conclusion reached by all three authorities – the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the ITAT – that the assessee had not provided any evidence of incurring expenditure for the cost of acquisition, was a pure finding of fact. The Court found no reason to disturb this finding, especially as no perversity was brought to its notice. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arun Malik, is aggrieved by an order dated May 26, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'A'. This order pertains to appeals ITA Nos. 1202 and 1203 (Del.)/2001 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessee's sole contention is that the Revenue failed to deduct the cost of acquisition when charging tax on capital gains. The Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the ITAT had all concluded that the assessee did not provide any evidence of incurring expenditure for the cost of acquisition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the Revenue's decision to not deduct the cost of acquisition while charging tax on capital gains, thereby raising a question of law or mixed law and fact concerning the computation of capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Revenue should have deducted the cost of acquisition of the capital assets when calculating capital gains. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for the assessee's argument. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that any expenditure was incurred for the cost of acquisition. The judgment does not explicitly state the revenue's arguments beyond this factual assertion.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 767/2007 . . . ARUN MALIK ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. . . versus . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through : Mr. J.R. Goel, Advocate. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR . O R D E R 13.08.2007 . CM NO. 10782/2007 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of accordingly. . . ITA No. 767/2007 Page 1 of 3 CM No. 10781/2007 Even though the application is extremely vaguely worded, we condone the delay in refiling the appeal. CM stands disposed of accordingly. ITA No. 767/2007 The Assessee is aggrieved by an order dated 26th May, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA Nos. 1202 and 1203 (Del.)/2001 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the Assessee is that while charging the tax on capital gains, the Revenue has not deducted the cost of acquisition of those capital assets. All the three authorities, namely the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Assessee has not been able to show anything by way of evidence that it had incurred some expenditure in the cost of acquisition. . ITA No. 767/2007 Page 2 of 3 This is a pure finding of fact and we do not find any reason to disturb it, particularly since no perversity has been brought to our notice. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. . . . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . . S.MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 13, 2007 sk . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No. 767/2007 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →