PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL vs. SMT. DAKSHA JAIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/125/2017HC Rajasthan04 July 2019Author: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the approach of setting aside the search assessment on the ground that no fresh materials were seized or discerned during the search was correct. This reasoning conforms to the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), a judgment that has been followed by various High Courts, including the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal filed by the Revenue was accordingly dismissed. The judgment does not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerns assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee, Smt. Daksha Jain, on February 10, 2010. This led to notices under Section 153A and subsequent search assessment orders. The additions made by the Revenue were on grounds including business loss, disallowance of interest, and unexplained cash entries in bank accounts. The ITAT had set aside the assessment orders, partly on procedural grounds and partly on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was correct in setting aside the assessment orders on the ground that the additions were not based on any fresh materials seized during the search. (Question of law, turning on Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The ITAT correctly set aside the assessment orders because the additions were not supported by any fresh materials discovered during the search. This approach aligns with established judicial precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that various questions of law arose with respect to the disallowance and additions made during the re-assessment proceedings. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's specific arguments beyond this general statement, nor does it name any authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 132,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 125/2017 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Smt. Daksha Jain, W/o Shri Virendra Modi, Adarsh Nagar, Sirohi. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.KK Bissa, Sr.Standing Counsel for Income Tax with Mr.GS Chouhan. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Hemant Bhati for Mr.Sanjay Nahar. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order 04/07/2019

1.

Various questions of law with respect to dis-allowance and additions made in the course of re-assessment proceedings are urged by the Revenue in its appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’)

2.

The search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s premises on 10.2.2010. This resulted in notices under Section 153A which culminated in search assessment orders for block period between assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. The additions made were on identical grounds i.e. business loss, claim for dis-allowance of interest of substantial amount, additions made on account of unexplained cash entries in the bank accounts, etc.

3.

The ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions were not based upon any fresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first ground for setting aside the order ; the (Uploaded on 06/07/2019 at 01:47:35 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:50:38 AM) (2 of 2) [ITA-125/2017] ITAT also considered and decided in favour of the assessee on the merits of the additions.

4.

The approach of the ITAT of setting aside the search assessment on the ground that no fresh materials was seized or discerned in the course of search is correct and conform to the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR

573.

That judgment has been followed by various High Courts including this Court.

5.

Consequently, no question of law arises. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 38-SPhophaliya/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 06/07/2019 at 01:47:35 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:50:38 AM)

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →