Smt. Pushpa Agarwal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

ITTA/283/2018HC TelanganaHBHC01010821201810 August 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had properly considered the subject matter and arrived at the conclusion that the affidavit submitted by the commission agent did not possess sufficient force. The Court noted that there were various mismatches and contradictions in the affidavit submitted by the commission agent when compared with the contentions submitted by the appellant. The assessee's contention of having paid commission to the commission agent was also dealt with by the lower forums. As these contentions were questions of fact that had been expressly dealt with by the two forums below, the High Court was of the considered opinion that there was no substantial question of law worth admitting the instant appeals. Consequently, the appeals were rejected.

What were the facts?

These appeals before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad concern Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The assessee, Smt. Pushpa Agarwal, is appealing against orders of the Income Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal's orders arose from appeals against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had in turn adjudicated appeals against the Income Tax Officer. The core of the dispute revolves around the confirmation of commission paid and received by commission agents. The assessee contended that commission was paid to the agent, but the lower authorities found inconsistencies and mismatches in the affidavit submitted by the commission agent, leading to adverse findings against the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) properly considered the affidavit submitted by the assessee concerning the confirmation of commission paid and received by commission agents, and if their findings on this factual matter are sustainable? (Question of fact/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the ITAT and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not properly appreciate the affidavit submitted by the assessee regarding the confirmation of commission paid and the commission received by the commission agents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not present specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding this issue, but implicitly supported the findings of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 33861 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LAXMI NARAYANA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos: 207 and 283 of 2018 l.T.T.A.No.207 of 2018 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Hyderabad, in ITA No.1342lHydl2o14, for Assessment Year 2000-01 dated: 21-04-2017 prefened against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Appeals)-18, Mumbai (camp at Hyderabad), Appeal No.ClT(A)-18llTO, W-10(2y 0001 & 01 09/ 07-08, dated: 25-03-2014, preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Range-1O, Hydelabad, P.A.N / G.l.R No.P-776, dated 't9-12-2006. Between: Smt. Pushpa Agarwal, Plot.No.22,Road No.S, Trimurthy Cotony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad. ...AppellanUAppellant AND The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-Vl, l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C.P. RAMASWAMI Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J.V. PRASAD, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department

l.T.T.A.No.283 ol 2018 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of thr_, lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate ''l-ribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, in ITA No.1341 lHydl2014, for Assessment year 1999-2000 dated:21-o4-2ol 7 preferred against the order of the commissicner of lncome Tax , (Appeals)-18, lr/lumbai (camp at Hyderabad), Appeat No.CtT(,A)-18ltTO, W-j0(2y 0001 & 01 09/ 07-08, dated: 25-03-2014, preferred against the r]rder of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1012), Range-'10. Hyderabad, p.A.N / G.l.R No.p-776, dated 19-12-2006. Between: Smt. Pushpa Aganval, Plot.No.22,Road No.S, Trimurthy Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad. ...AppellanUAppel lant AND The Principal Comrrissioner of lncome Tax-Vl, l.T.Towers, A.rl.Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C.p. RAMASWAMI Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J.V. PRASAD, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY AI{D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LA}(MI NARAYANA I.T.T.A. Nos.207 and 283 of 2018 .IUDGMpNI:4xr r I ton'bie 51 .iustlcr: p-SA-LI KOSH4) I{eard Mr C p. I{amasrvamy, learneti Counsel for thc appcllalr and .J.V. Prasad. it:arnc.d Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the lncorne Tax Departmenr 2 Upon hearing rlle learlled Counsel for the appellant, particularly ln rcs,cr:t of rh(' conrentiorr raised by him that the learned ITTA as also thc Ctrrrr,trssr,rrcr t.,l Irtr.onrc Ta_x Appeals_lg trave not properlv ,porecratcd lhc aflide*';r th,t thc appcllemt had submitted before ther, so far .s rtrc conlrrmation of the Commission paicl and the Commission rcccivcd br, the Conrmissrorr ag(,nl ts corrcerncd, we hnd *rat the two forums belou. i.e rht. lezu'ncd ITTA as also rhe Commissioner of Incomc Tax Appeals lE havc clab.s21311 dcalt nith tht: .-,ubject and arrived at thc conclllsron rhat ilr. affitla'it submlttcd r;y ltre comrnission agent does not have surficic.t forcc. Mr- .\ccr,rdirr g to '.lic tur.r contradictlons in thc :rifidavit su bmrtred b) krrums below, thr:re were various mismarch ald (:ontcntlons submitted by thc appellarrt lvirh t hc Commission Agent. .llhe assessee also had t.lk.Jn therc contcntiolrs ol havinq paid the Commissiol to the commission agor)l irt rhe tifst irrs[i,r(-(] Thr-rs. a, these contentions becomes qucstion or facts u.hich have br:cn i:xpicsslv deatt with by the said two torllms. the n()t 3. In thc gtvcn cir.Lmstarlccs. we arc of the considcred opiniorr that l.hcIe is lr(, subslanlial rlucstion ol. law worth admitting the lnslan t appcirls

To, and the same therclbrc fails and thcv are accordrngly rejected. No order as to costs 4. Consequentlv, miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1', shall stand closed SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome-Tax ,Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad' 2.TheCommissioneroflncomeTax,(Appeals)-18'MittalCotrrt'NaimanPoint' Mumbai. 3. The lncome Tax Cfficer, Ward-10(2)' Range-10' Hyderaba'J' 4. One CC to SRI C.P RAMASWAMI, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. J V. PRASAD, Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT loPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies Kam BSR d

HIGH COURT DATED: 1010812023 JUDGMENT lTTA.Nos.207 and 283 of 2018 THE l.T.T.As ARE REJECTED / -:' t.' -< - :'\Afr:,"'-'- _ ,J; I, '(i'- ''t I \ i ''t qtP 2u ) : : .,,t, \:\ il '!-,.., . '1{\-:, i_,l, " _ "t. ,r ,j -\ 7 a

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →