RAJESH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and ORS.

ITA/87/2003HC UttarakhandUKHC01006272200330 August 2003Bench: OTHER1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer or the decisions of the lower appellate authorities, as its primary finding was the absence of a substantial question of law. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal under Section 260A is maintainable only if a substantial question of law is involved, and if none exists, the appeal is liable to be dismissed summarily. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s Naveen Emporium, filed a return of income for assessment year 1992-93 showing an income of Rs. 2,940/-. The Assessing Officer added back Rs. 4,45,000/- to the assessee's income, contending that the assessee failed to prove this amount was received as an advance for the sale of property. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) partially reduced this addition. Both the assessee and the revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals. The present appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed/modified by the lower appellate authorities. The assessee contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified and that the lower appellate authorities had erred in their findings. The assessee sought to argue that a substantial question of law was involved, warranting interference by the High Court. The revenue, through its counsel, likely supported the order of the Tribunal, arguing that no substantial question of law arose and that the Tribunal's decision was based on findings of fact. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of either side beyond the general assertion of whether a substantial question of law arises.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE COURT OF HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 87 of 2003

Rajesh Kumar M/s Naveen Emporium, Gurudwara Road, Haridwar

…..….………

Appellant

Versus

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, And others.

………………..

Respondents

Mr. V.K.Bist, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the respondents.

Coram: Hon. S.H.Kapadia, C.J.

Hon. Irshad Hussain, J.

Date: 30.08.2003:

PC:

On 17.12.1992 the appellant – assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1992-93, showing income of Rs. 2940/-. The Assessment Officer added back Rs. 4,45,000/- to the income of the assessee as the assessee failed to prove that it was received as advance for sale of property. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) reduced the addition. Being aggrieved, both the parties went in appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals. Since no substantial question of law arises in this matter, this appeal under Section 2602-A is dismissed.

(Irshad Hussain, J.)

(S.H. Kapadia, C.J.)

AK:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →