THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JDR vs. M/S ANAND RICE TRADING CO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/142/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01049274200325 March 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeals could not be considered a substantial question of law. Following its earlier order in I.T.A. No. 35 of 2003, CIT v. M/s Vishnu Rice Trading Co., decided on April 22, 2003, the Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The reasoning was that the ITAT's decision, which upheld the deletion of the addition based on a Special Bench ruling, did not present a debatable legal point that warranted further consideration by the High Court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds that they did not involve a substantial question of law. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, has filed appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, dated January 9, 2003. The appeals pertain to assessment years not explicitly stated but involve common questions. The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which deleted an addition of Rs. 5,31,978/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). This addition was on account of alleged suppression of yield of Rice PR 106 (Rs. 5,08,732/-) and I.R.8 (Rs. 23,246/-). The AO had identified specific defects in the assessee's books of account, including the Milling Register and Audit Report.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 5,31,978/- on account of suppression of yield of Rice PR 106 and I.R.8, by observing that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Special Bench decision in M/s Shankar Rice Co. & Others Vs. I.T.O. (2001) 249 I.T.R. 44 (A.T.), despite specific defects found by the AO in the books of account, Milling Register, and Audit Report? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The ITAT erred in relying on the Special Bench decision of M/s Shankar Rice Co. & Others Vs. I.T.O. when the AO had found specific defects in the assessee's books of account, Milling Register, and Audit Report, which warranted the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 Date of decision: 25.3.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Anand Rice Trading Co. -----Respondent and connected cases being I.T.A. Nos.143 and 188 of 2003 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Since the registry has not been able to send the files on account of fire in the Court premises, learned counsel for the revenue has furnished copies of the paper books of these cases which are taken on record. We proceed to decide the matter after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 2. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.142, 143 and 188 of 2003 as it is stated that all the appeals involve common question. 3. I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate

I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 Tribunal, Amritsar dated 9.1.2003 in I.T.A. No.240(ASR)/2002 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether, the Ld. ITAT was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) therein deleting the addition of Rs.5,31,978/- made on account of suppression of yield of Rice PR 106 (Rs.5,08,732/-) and I.R.8 (Rs.23,246/-) by observing that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of M/s Shankar Rice Co. & Others Vs. I.T.O. (2001) 249 I.T.R. 44 (A.T.) when specific defects were found by the A.O. after examining the books of Account including Milling Register and Audit Report?” 4. Learned counsel for the parties point out that similar question was considered by this Court in I.T.A. No.35 of 2003 CIT v. M/s Vishnu Rice TradingCo. decided on 22.4.2003, wherein it was held that the issue raised could not be held to substantial question of law. 5. Accordingly, following the earlier order of this Court, the appeals are dismissed.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 25, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →