COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL vs. M/S SURYA TRADERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/82/2013HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01057575201318 November 20161 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no substantial question of law involved in the matter that would warrant consideration in an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had, after due assessment of the record, found the payment of the advance for the liquor license to be proved and had accordingly granted the adjustment. Since the appeal was filed under Section 260-A, which requires a substantial question of law, and no such question was found to exist, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal) has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. These authorities had allowed an adjustment related to an advance payment made by the assessee, M/s Surya Traders, for obtaining a liquor license. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in paragraph 6.4 of its order, found that the payment of this advance was proved and consequently granted the adjustment. The appeal by the Revenue is against this allowance of adjustment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in the matter warranting consideration in an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the allowance of an adjustment for advance paid for obtaining a liquor license? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision appears to be based on the findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue has challenged the adjustment granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue's appeal is predicated on the belief that a substantial question of law arises from the allowance of this adjustment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-82-2013 ( COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL Vs M/S SURYA TRADERS) 18-11-2016 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner, Appeals and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of allowing certain advance paid for obtaining the liquor license, has been treated as adjustment. Challenging the adjustment granted by the Commissioner, Appeal and the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, particularly para 6.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner, Appeal shows that after due assessment of the record, the finding recorded is that payment of this advance is proved and therefore, adjustment granted. Keeping in view the aforesaid based on finding of facts we find no substantial question of law involved in the matter warranting consideration in an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE mrs. mishra

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 →