C.I.T.UDAIPUR vs. M/S MATESHWARI INDRANI CONTRACTORS

ITA/252/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01034335201321 May 2016Bench: GOVIND MATHUR,BANWARI LAL SHARMA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the transactions in question were made through negotiable instruments and were recorded by the assessee in its returns as loans. The Court found that the onus to explain the source of the funds lay on the person who advanced the amount to the assessee, not on the assessee itself. Therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had failed to explain its source of income shown as loans. Consequently, the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law requiring adjudication by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Udaipur, challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The core issue revolves around an amount of Rs. 35,00,000 advanced to the assessee, M/s Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt. Ltd., by one Sri Rajendra Singh, and other unexplained transactions. The CIT argued that these transactions remained unexplained. The lower authorities had found that the transactions were conducted through negotiable instruments and were reflected in the assessee's returns as loans.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that Sri Rajendra Singh advanced Rs. 35,00,000 to the assessee, M/s Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt. Ltd., and certain other transactions remained unexplained, constituting a substantial question of law (mixed law and fact). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that Sri Rajendra Singh advanced Rs. 35,00,000 to the assessee and certain other transactions remained unexplained. The appeal involves a substantial question of law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.252/2013 [C.I.T. Udaipur VS. M/S Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt. Ltd.] DATE OF ORDER : 21.05.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.K.K. Bissa for the appellant. ... In this appeal the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur failed to appreciate that Sri Rajendra Singh advanced Rs.35,00,000/- to the assessee M/s Mateshwari Indarani Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and certain other transactions remained unexplained. Having considered the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, it is apparent that whatever transactions occurred were made through negotiable instruments and the assessee shown those in its returns as loan. The amount unexplained is on the part of the person who advanced the amount to the assessee and as such it cannot be said that the assessee failed to explain its source of income shown as loan. The appeal, as such, does not involve any substantial question of law that may require adjudication by this Court. The appeal is dismissed. [BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. mamta S.No.47

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →