Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore should be withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was indeed less than Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, and a clarification dated 20.08.2019. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, which is below the threshold stipulated in the circular. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment or the underlying dispute was decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning for this decision was based on the tax effect involved in the appeal being less than Rs. 1 crore, as per Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular provides guidelines for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold, which was Rs. 1 crore in this instance. The court found that the tax effect involved in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, thus satisfying the condition for withdrawal under the circular. The reasoning is purely procedural, adhering to the administrative instructions issued by the CBDT for efficient litigation management. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with no decision on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 crore. The court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was indeed less than the stipulated threshold, as clarified by a subsequent communication dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no issues were left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, and a subsequent clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular and clarification likely pertain to monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs.1 crore, the Revenue sought to withdraw them. The Court found no impediment to this request and accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, which was clarified by a communication dated 20.08.2019. The Circular provides guidelines regarding the monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, the Revenue sought permission to withdraw them. The Court, in accordance with the circular and the request, allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeal is covered by its previous judgment in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.145/2015 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd.), decided on 02/08/2017. The court applied the ratio of that judgment to the present appeal. However, the court also noted that the said previous judgment is subject to a special leave petition pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the parties are bound by the final judgment of the Supreme Court. The appeal was disposed of in light of this, with the operative direction being that the parties shall be bound by the final Supreme Court judgment.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning for this decision is explicitly stated as being in view of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, as clarified by a communication dated 20.08.2019. The circular pertains to the monetary limit for filing appeals, and the appellant represented that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold of Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original dispute was decided, as the appeal was withdrawn before any such adjudication.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 and a clarification dated 20.08.2019, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs.1 crore could be withdrawn. The Court found that the tax effect in the present appeal met this criterion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No substantive issues regarding the assessment itself were decided on merits.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which allows for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which allows for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi, as clarified by a subsequent communication dated 20.08.2019. The circular stipulated that appeals with a tax effect of less than Rs. 1 crore should not be filed or pursued. Since the tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw. The court granted this permission, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal considered Circular No.17/2019 (F.No.279/MISC./142/2007-ITJ (PT.) dated 08.08.2019) issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi, along with a clarification dated 20.08.2019. Based on these, the appellant submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 1 crore and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this permission. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification dated 20.08.2019, which govern the filing of appeals based on the tax effect. Since the tax effect in the present appeals was stated to be less than Rs. 1 crore, the revenue was permitted to withdraw them. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect threshold.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning for this decision was solely based on the Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals. As the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appellant was permitted to withdraw. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No substantive issues were decided on merits, and therefore, no ratio decidendi for future cases on the merits of the original dispute can be extracted. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made in accordance with Circular No.17/2019 and its clarification, which stipulate conditions for filing appeals based on the tax effect. The Court noted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal was less than Rs.1 crore, which justified the withdrawal request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which stipulate conditions for filing appeals based on the tax effect. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, which was the basis for the revenue's request to withdraw. The reasoning is solely procedural, based on the applicability of the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold specified in the relevant CBDT circular can be withdrawn upon seeking permission from the court. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made in view of Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification dated 20.08.2019, which govern the withdrawal of appeals based on the tax effect. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning is solely based on the administrative instructions provided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the monetary limit for filing and pursuing appeals. No finding was made on the merits of the original appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and a subsequent clarification dated 20.08.2019, which indicated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore should be withdrawn. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue, where the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in CBDT circulars for maintaining appeals, should be permitted to be withdrawn. The operative direction was that the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court observed that it is settled law that an assessment cannot be deemed complete under Section 143(3) without issuing a notice under Section 143(2). The ITAT had relied on the precedent of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362, and the assessee had indeed challenged the assessment on this ground. Since the Revenue did not raise this ground in its appeal and did not appear to have opposed the factual basis of the ITAT's finding during the hearing, the Court found no substantial question of law to consider. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law urged by the Revenue did not arise in this case. The Court noted that after the remand order dated 10.02.2017, the Commissioner sought additional documents on 14.08.2017 and 10.10.2017, with a hearing on 10.12.2017. The Court found that even considering a reasonable period for receipt of notice after remand, the Commissioner acted beyond the basic period stipulated under Section 12(2). Consequently, the question of whether the period contemplates remanded proceedings did not arise. The Court explicitly kept this question open for future consideration. For the stated reasons, no interference was called for.

The High Court held that the principle of consistency, while generally sound, must be considered in the context of each case. The mere fact that relatives were subjected to similar additions does not mandate the same treatment for the assessee in the concerned assessment year (A.Y. 2009-10), as each assessment year must be dealt with separately. The Court noted that the amounts brought to tax were undeclared and surfaced during the survey. The assessee's argument for applying the NP rate to undeclared amounts without establishing the essential characteristics for deductions under Section 68 was considered unsound, as it would promote dual criteria. Regarding the second issue, the ITAT had recorded cogent reasons for finding no rejection of books of account. The Court agreed that the purpose of the special audit under Section 142(2A) was to examine the correctness of accounts, not necessarily to reject them. The Court found no basis for a deemed rejection of books of account under Section 145(3). Therefore, both questions of law were answered against the assessee.

The High Court held that the revenue's contention is unsustainable and that there is no substantial question of law involved. The Court reasoned that Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, unequivocally deems Regional Rural Banks as cooperative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that in the absence of a non-obstante clause, the imposition of a restrictive condition in relation to cooperative banks for regulating the benefit of Section 80P does not alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed cooperative societies, and all contingent consequences flow from this deeming provision. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with the Regional Rural Bank remains eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2). The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The High Court held that the issue was concluded against the assessee as far as the High Court was concerned, citing its own earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports. The Tribunal's decision to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT as 'per incuriam' was implicitly set aside by the High Court's reliance on its own precedent. The High Court reasoned that its prior judgment directly addressed the disallowance of DEPB and Drawback duty as incentives, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance in Liberty India. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, restoring the Assessing Officer's order. However, the dismissal was made subject to the final outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court.

The High Court held that the issue agitated in the writ petition was fully covered by its previous judgment in Niharika Jain & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. (supra). Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The directions issued by the Court in the Niharika Jain case were to apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioners' case. As a result, the notice dated July 3, 2019, and the order under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, passed on July 9, 2019, were quashed and set aside. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The High Court, considering that the issue was concluded against the assessee by its own division bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports, dismissed the appeals. The court noted that the assessee had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, and the dismissal was made subject to the final outcome of that SLP. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial discipline and adherence to pronouncements of higher courts within its jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals, with the caveat regarding the pending SLP.

The High Court held that the issue was concluded against the assessee as far as the High Court was concerned, citing its own earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports. The Tribunal's decision to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT as 'per incuriam' was implicitly set aside by the High Court's reliance on its own precedent. The High Court reasoned that its prior judgment directly addressed the disallowance of DEPB and Drawback duty as incentives, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance in Liberty India. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, restoring the Assessing Officer's order. However, the dismissal was made subject to the final outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court.

The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports (2016 (3) WLC 660), which had allowed the revenue's appeal and restored the Assessing Officer's order. The Tribunal's decision to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT as per incuriam and follow other precedents was set aside. The Court noted that the assessee had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee, making the dismissal subject to the final outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court on the question involved. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of all the aforesaid appeals. The learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI and that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, since the Revenue had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of that judgment, and the SLP was pending, the parties jointly submitted that the present appeals should be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals accordingly, without deciding the merits of the issues themselves, but deferring to the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of all the aforesaid appeals. The learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI and that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, since the Revenue had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of that judgment, and the SLP was pending, the parties jointly submitted that the present appeals should be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals accordingly, without deciding the merits of the issues themselves, but deferring to the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of all the aforesaid appeals. The learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI and that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, since the Revenue had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of that judgment, and the SLP was pending, the parties jointly submitted that the present appeals should be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals accordingly, without deciding the merits of the issues themselves, but deferring to the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

The High Court noted that the parties are in agreement that the questions raised in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. It was further acknowledged that this issue had been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court against this judgment. Consequently, the Court agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that these appeals should be disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. No specific finding on the merits of the Section 43B interpretation was given in this judgment, as it was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties agreed that the questions in these appeals pertain to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. They further agreed that these issues had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.). However, the Revenue had preferred an SLP (C) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment was to be tested by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of the pending SLP, the appeals were disposed of making them subject to the final judgment of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question. No specific finding was given on the merits of the individual appeals, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeals subject to the Supreme Court's decision.

Regarding issues 1, 4, and 5 concerning contributions to the State Renewal Fund, Energy Conservation Fund, and Rajasthan Bhawan, the High Court found that the ITAT's deletion of additions was reasonable. The Court referred to its own common judgment dated 02.08.2017 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 145/2015, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., which had upheld similar expenditures claimed under Section 37(1). Therefore, no interference was deemed necessary on these grounds. Regarding issues 2 and 3, pertaining to the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI and the applicability of Section 43B versus Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, the Court acknowledged that its judgment in CIT vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) binds the revenue. However, the Court noted that the revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against this judgment before the Supreme Court, which was pending. Consequently, while the ITAT's decision on these questions was against the revenue, it was subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

The High Court, in its review petition, addressed the issue concerning the ₹6,00,000 addition. It noted that while the AO provided reasons for the addition under Section 68, the CIT(A) had examined the record and found the addition to be based on a third-party statement of an alleged accommodation entry provider. This statement was impeached in cross-examination and subsequently retracted. The Court found that, apart from this statement, there was no other evidence to support the AO's conclusion. The Court reiterated the settled law that if the identity, credit-worthiness, and genuineness of a transaction are prima facie shown, the onus shifts to the revenue. The Court found the CIT(A)'s approach and conclusion on this point to be reasoned and legally supportable. Therefore, the Court held that the absence of a detailed reason in the ITAT's order regarding this aspect did not constitute sufficient cause for recalling the impugned judgment. The review petition was dismissed.

The High Court held that the CESTAT erred in its conclusion. The Court found that the amendment to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Finance Act, 2018, brought about a significant change. The pre-amended provision required 'sufficient cause being shown' for extension, implying objective considerations and a hearing. The amended provision, however, requires the Commissioner to 'record reasons in writing' and 'inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified.' The Court emphasized that the latter condition of informing the concerned party is a crucial prerequisite. It reasoned that Parliament, aware of the previous legal position requiring notice, deliberately changed the terminology to streamline the process. The Court also noted the introduction of Section 110A for provisional release of goods, which softened the rigor of the original Section 110(2). Therefore, a textual reading of the amended Section 110(2) indicates that no separate notice is necessary before extending the period for issuing a show cause notice, provided the Commissioner records reasons in writing and informs the concerned party before the expiry of the initial six-month period. The impugned order of the CESTAT was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The High Court held that the first ground concerning the invalidity of the reassessment notice could not be urged as a question of law because the appellant-assessee had expressly given it up before the ITAT. Regarding the second ground, the Court found that there were concurrent factual findings by the lower authorities. The ITAT had rejected the assessee's argument about corrupted electronic evidence for the ₹32,00,000/- transaction, as this was a new submission not made before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court concluded that in view of these concurrent factual findings, no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. would not apply in this case. The Court noted that both the CIT(A) and ITAT had concurrent findings of fact. The crucial factor was that the write-off by the State was conditional upon the amount being utilized for capital/rehabilitation purposes by the assessee. This conditionality, coupled with the fact that the loan utilized by the assessee was for capital purposes and the assessee continued to be liable to repay the loan amounts, distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the Revenue. The Court found that the transaction was not a simple remission or cessation of liability but a conditional grant for capital expenditure. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition of ₹9.25 crores was unsustainable. The reasoning was based on several deficiencies in the Revenue's evidence. Firstly, the person who wrote the noting on the seized document, Mr. S.K. Jain, was not examined by the Revenue. Secondly, the statement of Mr. Padam Singhee, who vouched for the particulars of the noting, was not produced. Thirdly, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Somani, at whose premises the document was found, was neither confronted nor was his statement recorded. Crucially, the sellers from whom the land was purchased, and who would have been the recipients of any on-money, were not examined, and there was no evidence of their acceptance of on-money. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue itself had accepted no on-money payment in the case of M/s Om Metals Developers (P) Ltd., and the seized document did not even mention the assessee company. Therefore, the AO had solely relied on the Investigation Wing's findings without independent inquiry or material to conclude that the assessee made an on-money payment. The High Court found that the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT were entirely factual and no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court dismissed all the appeals. The Court found that the ITAT, in exercising its appellate powers, was justified in remanding the matters for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that the reopening of assessment was based on information received as a consequence of search and seizure proceedings. The Court held that the consistent view taken by the Revenue Authorities that there was a reason to believe within the meaning of the expression was correct, particularly concerning the challenge to the remand order. The Court opined that the ITAT was justified in requiring a proper analysis of the materials and facts available to the Revenue Authority. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeals were decided on merits.

The High Court dismissed all the appeals. The Court found that the ITAT, in exercising its appellate powers, was justified in remanding the matters for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that the reopening of assessment was based on information received as a consequence of search and seizure proceedings. The Court held that the consistent view taken by the Revenue Authorities that there was a reason to believe within the meaning of the expression was correct, particularly concerning the challenge to the remand order. The Court opined that the ITAT was justified in requiring a proper analysis of the materials and facts available to the Revenue Authority. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeals were decided on merits.

The High Court held that the appeal did not raise a question of law. The Court analyzed Section 2(1A)(a) and its Explanation 1, which clarifies that revenue derived from land does not include income arising from the transfer of land referred to in items (a) or (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2. This Explanation, introduced retrospectively from April 1, 1989, was considered clinching. The Court reasoned that the normal meaning of 'revenue' derived from land, considering the rule of ejusdem generis with 'rent', implies income derived from the asset itself, presupposing its existence. A transaction of sale results in the destruction of a revenue or rent-generating asset, thus the interpretation that sale proceeds constitute 'revenue' cannot be sustained. Therefore, no question of law arises, and the appeal is dismissed.