The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal vs. Shri Ravi Taparia

PDF · subscribers
ITA/38/2013HC Madhya Pradesh08 January 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Tribunal had gone into the question in detail, taking note of the entire transaction from paragraph 8 onwards of its impugned order. It was found that Shri Ajay Sadana is an NRI businessman settled in the United Kingdom, and all transactions were made by him through cheque. The Tribunal concluded that these transactions could not be treated as the assessee's own money. It was further found that Shri Deepak Shrivastava and Smt. Padmaja Shrivastava had given loans to three persons, including the assessee, against fixed deposits. Referring to the material on record, the Tribunal found no need for addition as the entire transaction was properly explained and was in accordance with law. The High Court found that the Tribunal's procedure and reasoning were a due appreciation of the factual aspect of the matter, and discretion was exercised after considering the factual aspect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 5.03.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2006-07. Proceedings were initiated under Section 153-A following a search and seizure operation under Section 132. The Assessing Officer assessed the assessee's total income at ₹51,26,687 by adding unexplained cash credit and loans. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, confirming an addition of ₹47,53,000. The Tribunal further allowed the assessee's appeal. The dispute centers on amounts received by the assessee through cheque from Shri Deepak Shrivastava and Padmaja Shrivastava via NRI Ajay Sadana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration regarding the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of amounts received by the assessee through cheque from Shri Deepak Shrivastava and Padmaja Shrivastava via NRI Ajay Sadana, for the assessment year 2006-07, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's order, as summarized in the judgment, found that Ajay Sadana is an NRI businessman settled in the UK, and all transactions were made by cheque. The Tribunal concluded that these transactions could not be treated as the assessee's own money. It was also found that the loans were given by Shri Deepak Shrivastava and Smt. Padmaja Shrivastava to three persons, including the assessee, against fixed deposits, and the transactions were properly explained and in accordance with law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's appeal is based on the premise that a substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments raised by the Revenue before the High Court, other than implying disagreement with the Tribunal's findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 132,Section 153-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Shri Ravi Taparia I. T. A. No. 38/13 8/01/15 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.03.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue under 260-A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07. Based on the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act certain proceedings were initiated under Section 153-A. The assessing officer assessed the total income of the assessee at ` 51,26,687/- by making an addition of certain unexplained cash credit and loan appearing in the bank account of the assessee. On the appeal being filed, initially the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the addition to the tune of only ` 47,53,000/-. However, on a further appeal being filed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal having allowed the appeal, this application has been filed. The only question warranting consideration is with regard to certain amount received by the assessee through cheque from one Shri Deepak Shrivastava and Padmaja Shrivastava through N. R. I. Ajay Sadana for the years in question. On considering the contentions advanced, we find that the learned Tribunal has gone into the question in detail and after taking note of the entire transaction that took place from para 8 onwards of the impugned order has discussed the transaction in detail and it has been found that Shri Ajay 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Shri Ravi Taparia Sadana is an N. R. I. a businessman settled in the United Kingdom and all the transactions have been made by him through cheque and these transactions cannot be treated as money of the assessee. It is found that Shri Deepak Shrivastava and Smt. Padmaja Shrivastava had given loan to three persons namely Shri Ravi Taparia and, thereafter to Shri Rafique Khan, Ishaq Khan and Shashi Bhan Singh. A finding of fact is recorded to say that loan was given to these three persons against the fixed deposit and by referring to the material available on record, it is found that there is no need for addition of this amount as the entire transaction is done properly has been explained and is in accordance to law. The Tribunal has given a detailed justification for the same. The procedure followed by the Tribunal and the reasons given by the Tribunal are nothing but due appreciation of the factual aspect of the matter and the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal and the Commissioner after considering the factual aspect of the matter. That being so, we find that no substantial question of law arises warranting reconsideration in the matter. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (S. K. GANGELE) J U D G E J U D G E Vy*

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →