The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Gupta

ITA/218/2012HC Madhya Pradesh09 January 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages

For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that there was no substantial question of law involved in the matter. The reasoning for upholding the Commissioner's order was based on the fact that the deletions and additions related to investments were on the basis of the maturity of fixed deposits. Once tax had been assessed for these deposits in the previous year, reassessment in a subsequent year was not permissible. The Tribunal relied on its own judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Purushottam Lal Tamrakar (A.No.104/1999) decided on 10th March 2003. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) against Smt. Sakuntala Devi Gupta for the block year 1989-99. The dispute concerns additions made to the assessee's income. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹1,27,000, which was reduced to ₹28,000 by the Commissioner. Furthermore, an addition of ₹1,60,000 made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue challenging these concurrent decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the Commissioner's decision to reduce an addition of ₹1,27,000 to ₹28,000 and delete an addition of ₹1,60,000 from the assessee's income for the block year 1989-99, thereby challenging the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the reasoning of the Tribunal suggests that the assessee likely argued that investments were based on the maturity of fixed deposits and that tax had already been assessed on these deposits in previous years, precluding reassessment in the subsequent year. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by Shri Sanjay Lal, argued that the Tribunal's decision to interfere with the additions made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The Revenue likely contended that the additions were justified based on the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A.No.218/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Gupta 09/01/2014 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue for the block year 1989-99 in the matter of assessing the individual income of the respondent. The only dispute canvassed in this appeal pertains to reducing an addition of `1,27,000/- made by the assessing authority to `28,000/- and further deleting an addition of `1,60,000/- from the income of the assessee. The aforesaid deduction as ordered by the Assessing Officer has been interfered with by the learned Commissioner, Income Tax and upheld by the Tribunal. The concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal have been challenged in these proceedings. A perusal of Para-36 of the appellate order goes to show that the tribunal upheld the addition based on certain judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Purushottam Lal Tamrakar (A.No.104/1999) decided on 10th of March, 2003 and after considering the fact that the deletions and additions of the investments is on the basis of maturity of the Fixed deposits and once for the said deposits, tax was assessed in the previous year, there cannot be reassessment in the subsequent year. I.T.A.No.218/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Gupta Having heard Shri Sanjay lal, learned counsel for the department and on going through the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Income Tax and the Tribunal, we see no substantial question of law involved in the matter warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma) Judge Judge nd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →