C I T UDAIPUR vs. NANALAL TELI RAJSAMAND

ITA/62/2006HC RajasthanRJHC01030036200523 May 2006Bench: RAJESH BALIA,RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the sufficiency of its funds to invest in the purchase of agricultural land are findings of fact. Since these are findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises for consideration before the High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the additions but rather on the maintainability of the appeal on a substantial question of law. The operative direction is that the appeal is dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (CIT, Udaipur) filed an appeal against an order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1994-95. The dispute concerns additions of Rs.1,56,200/- made to the assessee's income as income from undisclosed sources. These additions were on account of the purchase of agricultural land in the name of the assessee's minor son. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted these additions, accepting the assessee's contention that the funds for the purchase originated from the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which the assessee was the Karta. The CIT (Appeals) found that the HUF existed and had sufficient funds for the investment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of additions of Rs.1,56,200/- made on account of the purchase of agricultural land in the name of the assessee's minor son, as income from undisclosed sources, for assessment year 1994-95? (Question of law or mixed law and fact, turning on the provisions related to undisclosed income and the nature of funds used for investment). Assessee's Contention: The funds for the purchase of agricultural land were generated from the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which the assessee was the Karta. The HUF existed and had sufficient funds for the investment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the additions were justified as income from undisclosed sources. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments against the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the HUF and its funds, other than implicitly disagreeing with the deletion of additions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.62/2006 CIT, Udaipur Vs. Shri Nanalal Teli (Devra) Kelwa Date : 23.05.2006 PRESENT HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. R.P. VYAS Mr. K.K. Bissa for the appellant. ______ This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.2.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by which two separate appeals were decided. One relating to assessment year 1993-94 and another 1994-95. This appeal relates to assessment year 1994-95. The only question that was raised and decided by the Tribunal in respect of assessment year 1994-95 was about additions made in the income of the assessee of Rs.1,56,200/- as income from the undisclosed sources on account of purchase of agricultural land in the name of his minor son. The CIT (Appeals) has found in favour of the assessee by accepting his contention that the fund for purchase of agricultural land generated from the Hindu Undivided Family of which the assessee was a Karta. The CIT (Appeals) accepted the

2 existence of HUF and sufficiency of available fund which could be invested in the purchase of agricultural land. That finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal. In our opinion, whether the HUF existed and it had sufficient fund to invest for purchasing the agricultural land are findings of facts and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [ R.P. VYAS ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →