THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HEMA KANWAR NARENDRA SINGH RATHOD

ITA/101/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02054885202419 August 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it did not find any question of law, more so of any public importance, arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had only remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of addition concerning an amount already surrendered by the husband of the assessee, which was before the Settlement Commissioner. Based on this finding, the High Court dismissed the appeals. No specific issue was left undecided; the court found no basis to proceed with the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The remand was to examine whether an addition could be made concerning an amount that had already been surrendered by the husband of the assessee. This surrender was in a case that had been placed before the Settlement Commissioner. The assessee is Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod. The assessment years are not specified in the provided text. The appeals challenge the ITAT's decision to remand the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the present appeals as there is no question of law, or of any public importance, arising from the ITAT's order. (Mixed question of law and fact, implicitly concerning the scope of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee's side implicitly argued that the ITAT's order of remand did not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting further appeal to the High Court. This is inferred from the High Court's observation that it did not find any question of law more of any public importance. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, as the appellant, contended that the ITAT's order was erroneous and that the High Court should interfere. The specific grounds for this contention are not detailed in the provided text, but it is implied they believed a substantial question of law existed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:32403-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 99/2024 The Principal Commisioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005. ----Appellant Versus Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, 207, Gomes Defence Colony, Avenue-4, Jaipur(Pan/gir No. Aaspr0262M). ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 101/2024 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur- 302005 ----Appellant Versus Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, 207, Gomes Defence Colony, Avenue-4, Jaipur (Pan/gir No. Aaspr0262M) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Miittal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 19/08/2025 1. Considering that the ITAT has only remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine whether addition can be done in relation to amount which has already been surrendered by the husband in the case which has been placed before the

[2025:RJ-JP:32403-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-99/2024] Settlement Commissioner, we do not find any question of law more of any public importance in the present appeals. 2. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J RAHUL MIRKHANI/8-9

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →