CIT, PATIALA vs. RAJESH KUMAR BANSAL, PATIALA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeals did not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantive question of law. The Court found that the ITAT's decision was based on pure findings of fact. The ITAT had reasoned that the CIT(A) erred in law by holding that there was no material on record to justify a higher cost of construction, deeming the assessee's explanation reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had not presented any evidence to suggest that the expenses incurred were higher than declared, and that the valuation report alone could not form the basis for making additions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as they did not warrant admission.
What were the facts?
The appeals before the High Court concerned two Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) orders dated July 31, 2008, which disposed of ITAT appeals 940 and 941 of 2006. These ITAT appeals related to assessment year 2000-01 and involved identical issues concerning two godowns constructed by two brothers. The Assessing Officer (AO) had relied on a valuation report obtained for bank loan purposes. The ITAT had found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in holding that there was no material to justify a higher cost of construction, considering the assessee's explanation reasonable and the valuation report insufficient on its own for additions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in law in holding that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, considering the valuation report presented for bank loan purposes as insufficient to justify higher construction costs, and finding the assessee's explanation reasonable. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The High Court's observation implies that the assessee's explanation regarding construction costs was found reasonable by the ITAT. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in law by not admitting the appeals, implying that the ITAT's findings of fact did not warrant interference. The revenue's argument, as understood from the High Court's decision, is that the ITAT should have considered the valuation report as a basis for making additions to the income.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA 80 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH. ITA No.80 of 2009 Date of decision 2.2.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Shri Rajesh Kumar Bansal ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of two appeals being ITA Nos. 80 and 81 of 2009 as by a common order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh both the appeals were disposed of namely, ITA Nos. 940 and 941/Chandi of 2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01. The issue is identical which involve two godowns built by two brothers. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on the Valuation report which was presented for the purposes of obtaining loan from the Bank.According to Tribunal the CIT (A) erred in law in holding that there was no material on record to justify the higher cost of construction. The explanation furnished by the assessee was found reasonable. It was also found that the revenue did not bring anything on record suggesting that expenses incurred were more than the one declared and the Valuation report alone cannot constitute basis for making additions. Having heard the learned counsel we find that these are pure
ITA 80 of 2009 2 findings of fact and would not give rise to a question of law much less a substantive question of law. The appeals do not warrant admission and consequently the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Ajay Tewari) 2.2.2010 Judge okg
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
