Smt. Radhadevi Chandak vs. Income-Tax Appellant Tribunal (The Tribunal)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found that, prima facie, there appeared to be an error committed by the ITAT in adding the amount in question concerning the petitioner when a different treatment was given to the joint account holder. The question of whether the amount could be added and what benefit should be granted to the petitioner in comparison to the joint holder, to whom the benefit of deletion was granted, needed reconsideration by the Tribunal. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the ITAT with a direction to reconsider the question of the addition of Rs. 51,000/- on the grounds indicated. The impugned order, insofar as it relates to the addition of the amount, was quashed for reconsideration and a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges an order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore. The core issue is the ITAT's decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 51,000, representing 50% of a deposit made in the appellant's bank account prior to the block period. The appellant contends that this amount was received before the block period and thus should not be added. The appellant further argues that a co-account holder in a similar situation had the amount deleted on the grounds of it being received prior to the block period, but this benefit was not extended to the appellant. The appellant claims to have brought this disparity to the ITAT's notice, which indicated it would be considered but ultimately did not grant the relief.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Tribunal was justified in maintaining an addition of Rs. 51,000/- being 50% of the deposit made in the bank account of the appellant prior to the block period in question? (Question of law and fact, concerning the addition of income). Assessee's Contentions: - The addition of Rs. 51,000/- is unjustifiable because the amount was received in the bank account prior to the block period and therefore could not be added. - In the case of a co-account holder, a similar amount was deleted on the ground that it was received prior to the block period, but this benefit was not extended to the appellant. - The ITAT was informed of this disparity and indicated it would be considered but failed to do so. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the provided judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 ITA No.188/2010 12/12/2013. Shri A. P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice. Challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is made to the orders passed as contained in Annexure A/1 dated 28.5.2010 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore. The only question involved in this appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Tribunal was justified in maintaining an addition of Rs.51,000/- being 50% of the deposit made in the bank account of the appellant prior to the block period in question.
However,
under
similar circumstances in the case of co-account holder the amount was deleted on the ground that the amount was received in a period prior to the block period. It is pointed out by Shri A. P. Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioner that the addition of Rs.51,000/- made by the Tribunal is unjustifiable for the simple reason that the amount was received in the bank account prior to the block period 2 ITA No.188/2010 and therefore, it could not be added. It is further stated that in the case of co-account holder the amount was not added on such consideration but when the case of the appellant was considered, the benefit has not been extended. It is said that these facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of hearing, the Tribunal has indicated that the matter shall be considered at the time of final hearing but nothing was done and therefore, this appeal has been filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts that has come on record prima facie there seems to be some error committed by the Tribunal in adding the amount in question as far as the petitioner is concerned when some different treatment was given to the joint account holder. The question as to whether the amount could be added and what benefit should to be granted to the petitioner in comparison to joint holder to whom the benefit of deletion of amount is granted is to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. Keeping in view the aforesaid, matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the question of 3 ITA No.188/2010 addition of Rs.51,000/- in question on the grounds as are indicated herein above. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of and the order impugned so far as it relates to addition of amount is concerned is quashed to be reconsidered and a decision taken afresh. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma) Judge Judge
mrs.mishra
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
