C W T JAIPUR vs. SMT PRABHA DEVI GOLECHA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the ITAT, which were based on earlier decisions of the Tribunal that had attained finality and were not challenged, were to be upheld. The Court found itself in complete agreement with the view taken by the ITAT. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed by the Court did not require an answer. The appeals filed by the department were decided in favour of the assessee and against the department. The operative direction was that all the appeals stand dismissed.
What were the facts?
These appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Jaipur-I, challenge the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had dismissed the department's appeals. The ITAT's decision was based on the finding that the first appellate authority (Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)) had correctly reversed the Assessing Officer's additions. These additions were made to the net wealth of the assessee, Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha (Legal Heir of Late Hemchand Golecha), on account of an alleged undisclosed credit balance in the books of M/s Salas S.A. of Geneva and based on information from Mr. John Ashlyn of the same firm. The ITAT noted that similar additions in other connected cases and in the assessee's own income-tax assessment had been deleted by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, in law and facts, the ITAT was justified in deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer to the assessee's net wealth concerning an undisclosed credit balance in M/s Salas S.A. of Geneva and information from Mr. John Ashlyn? (Assessee's contention: The ITAT correctly deleted the additions, following its own prior orders in similar cases and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision which was based on those orders. Revenue's contention: The additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified. 2. Whether, in law and facts, the ITAT was justified in setting aside an addition of Rs. 1,41,40,300/-? (Assessee's contention: The ITAT's decision to set aside the addition was correct. Revenue's contention: The addition was valid. 3. Whether, in law and facts, the ITAT's finding was perverse, contrary to the record, and untenable in law? (Assessee's contention: The ITAT's finding was not perverse. Revenue's contention: The ITAT's finding was perverse and legally unsound.)
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 16(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT 1. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.05/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 2. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.01/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 3. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.02/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 4. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.03/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 5. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.04/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur.
-2- 6. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.06/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 7. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.07/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 8. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.08/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 9. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.09/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 10. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.10/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 11. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.11/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus
-3- Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 12. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.15/2004. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. 13. DB WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.01/2005. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. Versus Smt. Prabha Devi Golecha, L/H of Late Hemchand Golecha, Bara Gangor Ka Rasta, Jaipur. Date of order : 30.11.2016. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Mr. Sandeep Pathak and Mr. Anuroop Singhi for the appellant. Mr. N.M. Ranka, senior advocate with Mr. N.K. Jain ) Ms. Ishita Rawat on behalf of Mr. Gunjan Pathak ) for the respondent. 1. By way of these appeals, the department has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department. In all these appeals, following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2004. “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right and justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the net wealth of the assessee, on account of undisclosed credit balance in the books of the firm M/s Salas S.A. Of Geneva and on the basis of information supplied by Mr. John Ashlyn of M/s Salas S.A. Geneva? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right and justified in
-4- setting aside the addition amounting to Rs.1,41,40,300/-? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the finding of the ITAT is perverse, contrary to the record and untenable in the eye of law?” 2. The Tribunal in para 2 and 3 of the order has observed as under: “2. The factual position in all these cases is that the original assessment order under section 16(3) was set aside by the first appellate authority directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the assessee. The decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal and the claim of the assessee was allowed. The ld. Assessing Officer while passing the order on the directions of the first appellate authority made same additions. At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that the additions were made to the net wealth of the assessee on account of undisclosed credit balance in the books of the firm M/s Salas SA of Geneva and the statement of Mr. John Ashlyn. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the orders of the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Tribunal. 3. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noted that the additions were made in income-tax assessments as well as wealth-tax assessments of some connected assessees of this group on the basis of the statement of Mr. John Ashlyn. Several orders have been passed by the Tribunal in such cases deleting the additions so made. It is found that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also overturned the action of the Assessing Officer on the basis of the Tribunal order in assessee's own case. In view of these facts, we are satisfied that the decision of the first appellate authority, being based on the Tribunal's orders, does not warrant any interference. Respectfully following the precedents, we uphold the impugned orders as announced in the open court.” 3. The concurrent findings of fact given on the basis of earlier decision which was delivered by the Tribunal have attained finality and
-5- have not been challenged. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. 4. The questions of law do not require to be answered. Therefore, all the appeals are decided in favour of the asssessee and against the department. The appeals stand dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA), J.
(K.S. JHAVERI), J. bblm
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
