Dismissed

Cc I T Bikaner v. M/S G P Taparia

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2014ITA/155/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by the Revenue against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order admitting cash transactions was dismissed. The Court held that the issues were squarely covered by its own judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udhyog and a subsequent dismissall order, deciding the appeal against the Revenue.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the issues were squarely covered by the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udhyog.

Cc I T Bikaner Vs M/S G P Taparia — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

ITA No.155/2007

¶2

¶3

D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.155/2007 CIT, Bikaner Vs. M/s G.P.Taparia, Nokha

¶4

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19^th February 2014

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶6

Mr.K.K.Bissa for the appellant Mr.Lokesh Mathur for the respondent

¶7

BY THE COURT:

¶8

This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 03.08.2004, as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur [‘ITAT’] in ITA Nos. 11 & 12/JDPR/2000 for the Assessment Year 1994-95 has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶9

“(i) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was right in holding all the cash transactions between the assessee and its sister concern situated under the same roof and the partners being members of the family and the principal partner of both the firms being the same person, beyond the purview of Sec.269-SS and 269(5) of the Income Tax Act even if interest was charged on such transactions?

¶10

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the answer to question No.1 is in negative, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty was still leviable?”

¶11

The impugned order dated 03.08.2004 has been passed by the ITAT in this case with reference to its order dated 27.02.2004 passed in relation to the same assessee in ITA Nos.2139 & 2140/JP/96 for the Assessment Year 1993-94. It is informed that the said order dated 27.02.2004 has been affirmed by this Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, being D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.78/2006, decided on 21.08.2008.

¶12

It is also informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the said order dated 27.02.2004 was passed by the ITAT on the basis of its order dated 27.03.2002, as passed in ITA No.2145/1996

¶13

ITA No.155/2007

¶14

¶15

which was considered and affirmed by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.80/2002, decided on 26.07.2007.

¶16

The said D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 78/2006 relating to the same assessee for the Assessment Year 1993-94 has been dismissed by this Court with a short order that reads as under:-

¶17

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The learned Tribunal, in this case, has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of its other judgment dated 27.03.2002, passed in Income Tax Appeal No.2145 of 1996 – ITO Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udhyog. We are informed that,that judgment has been affirmed, in appeal, by this Court on 26.07.2007, in the judgment reported in 211 CTR 579. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

¶19

That being the position, to say the least, the controversy, involved in the present case, is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udhyog, and appeal is decided against the revenue, and in favour of the assessee.

¶20

Resultantly, the appeal, is dismissed, for the aforesaid reasons.”

¶21

In fact, it is noticed that the present appeal was ordered to be connected with DB Income Tax Appeal No.78/2006 but appears to have got de-linked.

¶22

The aforesaid being the position and the relevant issues having been considered and decided by this Court in the aforesaid D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.80/2002; and following which, the other appeal of the Revenue concerning the same assessee and said to be involving akin issues, being D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 78/2006, having also been dismissed by this Court, we are clearly of the view that the framed questions in this appeal are required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

¶23

Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶24

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

¶25

Cc I T Bikaner v. M/S G P Taparia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cc I T Bikaner v. M/S G P Taparia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Gaur Vs Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Varshiya Sadhu M J Sangh Vs Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur

Ajay Singh Vs State and Anr.

Smt. Mamta Devi Vs State of Raj.

Pawan Khatri Vs State and Ors.

Bhawani Singh Vs State and Ors.