COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. SP KHANNA

PDF · subscribers
ITR-221/1982HC Delhi2001:DHC:880628 February 20013 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court declined to answer the question referred by the ITAT. The Court observed that the ITAT's findings were based on material and recorded on factual questions. Specifically, the ITAT had sustained an addition of Rs. 10,000/- for the first assessment year (1953-54) due to the assessee's lack of satisfactory explanation for owning the sum outside the books. However, for subsequent years, the ITAT, following the ratio of the Delhi High Court's decision in Bawa Jagjit Singh's case, held that no addition was called for as income from undisclosed sources, because the peak credit for those years did not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. The Court found that these were findings based on facts and therefore, no question of law arose out of the ITAT's order. The references were accordingly disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) referred seven cases involving identical issues to the Delhi High Court for opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Shri Sat Pal Khanna, proprietor of M/s. Behari Lal Sat Pal, was a refugee from Pakistan who joined a partnership and later started his own business. Assessments for assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57 and 1959-60 to 1961-62 were re-opened. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made additions to income from other sources, totaling Rs. 20,000 for 1953-54, Rs. 25,000 for 1954-55, Rs. 11,000 for 1955-56, Rs. 3,500 for 1956-57, Rs. 10,000 for 1959-60, Rs. 8,000 for 1960-61, and Rs. 11,500 for 1961-62, believing certain payments were made outside the books. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) dismissed the assessee's appeals. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the additions for subsequent years, applying the principle of peak credit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 20,000/- for assessment year 1953-54, Rs. 25,000/- for assessment year 1954-55, Rs. 11,000/- for assessment year 1955-56, Rs. 3,500/- for assessment year 1956-57, Rs. 10,000/- for assessment year 1959-60, Rs. 8,000/- for assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 11,500/- for assessment year 1961-62 made by the ITO as income from other sources? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the concept of peak credit was wrongly applied to the facts of the case. The Revenue relied on the fact that the ITAT itself observed that the assessee had no satisfactory explanation for owning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- outside the books for the first assessment year (1953-54), and thus sustained that addition. However, for subsequent years, the Revenue contended that the ITAT's deletion based on peak credit was incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 34(1)(a),Section 144,Section 146

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2001:DHC:8806-DB

2001:DHC:8806-DB

2001:DHC:8806-DB

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →