PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. SH. KISHORE KAPPOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/351/2018HC DelhiDLHC01499359201723 March 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court took into account the facts presented, including the assessee's explanation of the receipts and the fact that the amounts were offered for taxation in subsequent years and accepted. The Court also noted the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities and their reliance on the decision in Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 158). Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of accordingly. No specific amount was directed to be added or deleted by the High Court, as it found no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is appealing an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had held that ₹90,00,000, which the Assessing Officer (AO) sought to bring to tax as long-term capital gains and unexplained cash deposit (₹79,55,000), was unjustified. The assessee, Sh. Kishore Kapoor, contended that these receipts represented forfeited amounts from a forged sale transaction and advances from third-party purchasers. The lower appellate authorities noted that the assessee had offered the cash amounts received in subsequent years, and these were accepted and assessed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the amount of ₹90,00,000 brought to tax by the AO as long-term capital gains and unexplained cash deposit was unjustified, thereby raising a substantial question of law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant income tax provisions). Assessee's Contentions: The receipts were explained as forfeited amounts on account of a forged sale transaction and advances received from third-party purchasers. The amounts were offered for taxation in subsequent assessment years and accepted by the Revenue. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue questioned the ITAT's decision to delete the addition made by the AO, implying that the ITAT's finding was erroneous and a substantial question of law arises.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 351/2018 & CM APPL. 11638/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advs.

versus

SH. KISHORE KAPOOR

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

23.03.2018

The Revenue questions an order of the ITAT which held `90,00,000/- brought to tax by the AO, on account of long term capital gains and unexplained cash deposit (`79,55,000/-) was unjustified. According to the assessee, the receipts represented inter alia forfeited amount on account of a forged sale transaction and advances received from third party purchasers. The lower appellate authorities have noticed that the assessee had offered the amounts received in cash, towards subsequent years which were accepted and assessed.

Having regard to these facts and the concurrent findings rendered by the lower appellate authorities who took note of the ITA 351/2018

Page 1 of 2

decision in Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 158, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of accordingly.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MARCH 23, 2018 kks

ITA 351/2018

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →