THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL vs. SHRI GAURAV SHARMA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/41/2015HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01021258201502 August 20164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court found that the ITAT's findings in the present case were directly based on its earlier order in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. Crucially, the High Court noted that appeals filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order in Dr. Yogiraj Sharma's case had already been dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court on February 28, 2016. That dismissal was on the grounds that the ITAT's findings were based on factual aspects and evidence on record, and no substantial question of law was involved. Therefore, the High Court held that no case was made out for interference in the present appeals, as they also involved pure findings of fact and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed several appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated November 20, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench. The appeals concerned assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but arising from a search and seizure operation under Section 132 conducted on September 7, 2007, at the residential premises of the assessee, Shri Gaurav Sharma. A notice under Section 153-A was issued, and the assessee filed a return declaring income and surrendering an undisclosed amount. During assessment, it was found that the assessee's father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, a government servant, had received illegal gratification, and undisclosed income was diverted to family members. The ITAT's decision was based on its prior findings in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the assessment of undisclosed income, which were based on its prior decision in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma (Assessment Year(s) not specified)? The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order was flawed. The Assessee did not present separate arguments, but the High Court noted that the ITAT's findings in the present case were based on its prior order in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. This prior order was then challenged by the Revenue in appeals before the High Court. The High Court, in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, had dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding that the ITAT's conclusions were based on factual aspects and available evidence, and no substantial question of law was involved. The present appeals by the Revenue are against the ITAT's order which followed the same reasoning.

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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

29 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

31 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

34 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

36 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

41 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma 2 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

42 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

43 OF

2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal

- V/s -

Shri Gaurav Sharma

Present : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon; Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Anurag Shrivastava;J ...................................................................................................................... Shri Sanjay Lal with Shri Prateek Jain for the appellant. Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava for the respondent. ...................................................................................................................... J U D G M E N T (2/08/16) In these appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, exception is sought to the order dated 20th November, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore. 2. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 7/09/07 in the residential premises of the assessee and based on the same, a notice U/s 153-A of the Act was issued and the assessee furnished a return of the income declaring his income and also surrendered certain amount not disclosed in the original return. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that father of the assessee Dr. Yogiraj Sharma was a Govt. servant. He had received illegal gratification from the suppliers of 3 medicines and other suppliers while discharging his official duty in the Health Department and certain undisclosed income received by Dr. Yogiraj Sharma was found to be diverted showing bogus income in the name of family members. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while dealing with the matter in the assessment orders passed in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma and while considering the question in an appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para 18 recorded a following finding :- 18. After hearing the rival submissions we may mention that this issue has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in IT (SS) nos. 159-163/IND/2013 in the appeals filed by Dr. Yogiraj Sharma in which this Tribunal at para 47 has held as under : “47. We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same alongwith the order of the tax authorities below. This is an undisputed fact that search and seizure operation has been carried out at A-70, Shakti Nagar, Bhopal which belonged to the son of the Assessee, Shri Gaurav Sharma. The Assessee was allotted Government accommodation and has also occupied the same. The son of the Assessee, Shri Gaurav Sharma got direction of the CIT (A) that these additions have to be made in A. Y. 2008-09, not in A. Y. 2007-08.” 4. This finding is based on the order passed earlier by the Tribunal as indicated therein in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. Against the orders passed by the Tribunal in the case of Yogiraj Sharma, appeals were filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders passed on 28/02/16 in I. T. A. No. 152/2015 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and it was found that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on factual aspect of the matter and on the basis of evidence available on record and as no substantial question of law is involved, therefore, the appeals were dismissed. 4 5. On a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, we find that the findings recorded in the present case are based on the order passed in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma which has already been upheld by this Court. 6. That being the position, we find no case made out for interference, that apart we have analyzed the order in question, have considered the objections of the revenue as were canvassed by Shri Sanjay Lal. We find that no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. The order passed by the Tribunal is based on due appreciation of the evidence that came on record, its a pure finding of fact, and, therefore, we find no ground to interfere into the matter as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) (Anurag Shrivastava) Acting Chief Justice Judge 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 →