Partly allowed

Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2019SAW/743/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of high court appeal by setting aside A.I.T Order and informing that Order filed by appellant shall stand allowed in toto. Court directed that appeal restored for first part of additional ground should be decided. Court directed that additional ground should be heard and decided on both grounds.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 08.03.2017 to extent of second part of additional grounds; direct that application filed by appellant shall stand allowed in toto with respect to both parts.

Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs the Joint Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 743/2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6568/2017

¶5

Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, E-36-B, Vijay Nagar, Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

¶6

----Appellant-Petitoner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Dave with Mr. Mahendra Gargiya. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

05/04/2019

¶14

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-assessee challenging judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for shot ‘the Tribunal’) whereby while entertaining misc. application filed by the appellant, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated 27.04.2016 to hear on additional grounds.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the Court through the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Tribunal and

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[SAW-743/2018]

¶18

has argued that while rectification application has been allowed on the first part of the additional grounds and the Tribunal has recalled its order dated 27.04.2016 to the extent of admission relating to the inspector’s report. The Tribunal, however, despite taking note of the another part of the additional grounds regarding doubt expressed by it about genuineness of the agreement dated 02.06.2011, no argument was raised by the Revenue, no finding whatsoever has been given thereagainst and in fact, it was nobody’s case before the Tribunal.

¶19

Mr. R. B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-revenue is not in a position to dispute that no argument whatsoever was raised before the Tribunal by the Revenue but the Tribunal having taken note of the argument on behalf of the revenue, not raising any doubt with regard to genuineness of the agreement, has not given any finding.

¶20

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that the appellant-assessee himself filed an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act on two parts of the additional grounds. First part was pertaining to the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the basis of Inspector’s Report dated 13.03.2014 and it was argued that the said report has been relied upon by the assessing officer without providing opportunity to the appellant and the CIT(A) has also been referred to it without allowing opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witness on that point. Another ground was to the effect that an error apparent on the face of the record has crept in the order as appeal of the assessee-appellant was dismissed on the plea that the genuineness of the agreement dated 02.06.2011 was

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-743/2018]

¶23

questionable, the veracity of which was never an issue before, or under challenge by, both the authorities below. This was never the case of the revenue or argued on its behalf.

¶24

In our view, the Tribunal has erred in law in not passing any specific order on second part of the additional grounds as noted above. We are therefore inclined to set aside order dated 08.03.2017 to the extent of second part of the additional grounds and direct that the application filed by the appellant-assessee shall stand allowed in toto with respect to both the parts of the additional grounds as we are informed that the appeal that was restored for hearing on first part of the additional grounds, has not been decided yet, may now be heard and decided on both the grounds.

¶25

Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶26

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶27

MANOJ NARWANI /83

Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Maya Alias Parvati Verma W/O Shri Brijmohan Verma Vs Shri Brijmohan S/O Shri Ganesh Ram Verma

Mukesh Verma S/O Devi Lal Verma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sen Vs Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Salasar Balaji B.Ed College Vs Shyam Singh Raj Purohit Director

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs M/S Sethi Construction Company

Khargi @ Kharag Singh S/O Natholi B/C Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan