COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY CENTER GWLIOR vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/12/2016HC Madhya PradeshMPHC03017167201621 September 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the High Court cannot upset a finding of fact. The question of whether a particular transaction entered into by the assessee with a particular person is essentially a question of fact. Once a finding on either way is recorded by the Tribunal, it is not liable to be interfered with by the High Court unless an error of law, as contemplated under Section 260A, is pointed out. The Tribunal found that the question raised in the appeal was fully covered by the judgment in CIT Versus Gom Industry Limited (2007) 292 ITR 0406. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for determination. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shailendra Kumar Agrawal, engaged in the business of grain merchant and commission agent for the assessment year 2012-2013, declared a total income of Rs. 12,44,930/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by making an addition of Rs. 11,13,12,000/- on account of an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted this addition. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Gwalior, has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can upset a finding of fact under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the question of whether a particular transaction is essentially a question of fact. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal is filed by the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the High Court has the power to interfere under Section 260A. However, the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was unable to present a Division Bench judgment that would allow upsetting the Tribunal's finding of fact. The Revenue relied on the principle that the High Court cannot upset a finding of fact under Section 260A unless an error of law is pointed out. The Revenue implicitly sought to challenge the ITAT's deletion of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-12-2016 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY CENTER GWLIOR Vs SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL) 21-09-2016 Shri DPS Bhadauria, Advocate for appellant. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2016 received on 15.3.2016 for the assessment year 2012-2013. The facts of the present case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of grain merchant and commission agent for the assessment year 2012-2013 and he has declared his total income at Rs.12,44,930/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 4.3.2015 after making addition of Rs.11,13,12,000/- on an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which has deleted the addition of Rs.11,13,12,000/- against which the department has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has made various submissions but he is unable to come out with the Division Bench Judgment in the case of CIT Versus Gom Industry Limited reported in (2007) 292 ITR 0406 wherein this Court in Paragraph No.8 has observed that the High Court cannot upset the finding of fact under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act as a matter of fact the question whether a particular transaction entered into by the assessee with particular person is essentially a question of fact, therefore, once any finding on either way is recorded by the Tribunal and same is not liable to be interfered with by the High Court unless an error of law as contemplated under Section 260A is pointed out. Keeping in view the above-said pronouncement of law, in our considered opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal and the question as raised is fully covered by the judgment referred to in CIT vs Gom Industry Ltd (supra). Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →