Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Prakash Chand Sharma

Rajasthan HC12 May 2022ITA/1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the ITAT order, holding that no substantial question of law arises as the Tribunal logically dealt with facts and law without gross violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Present appeal under Section 260A of the Act is dismissed as no substantial question of law worth consideration arises.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Prakash Chand Sharma — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 1/2021

¶3

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Prakash Chand Sharma, C-42, Gokul Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶10

Order

¶11

12/05/2022

¶12

Present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ’the Act’) against the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 779/JP/2019 for assessment year 2007-08.

¶13

By the present IT appeal, the following substantial question of law are proposed:-

¶14

“I) Whether in view of the Circular No. 23/2019 dated 06/09/2019 which provides for filing of appeal on merits in cases of penny stocks and other cases involved in organized tax evasion activity, irrespective of the tax effect involved, the orders passed by the Tribunal, vide which the appeal and the misc. application of the appellant has been dismissed solely on account of low tax effect, are sustainable?

¶15

II) Whether, the orders passed by the Tribunal are contrary to Circular No. 23/2019 dated 06/09/2019 and Special Order dated 16/09/2019 issued by CBDT?”

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[ITA-1/2021]

¶18

AT the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter is covered by D. B. IT Appeal No. 22/2021 titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Vs. Shri Sanjay Chhabra .

¶19

We have considered the submissions.

¶20

On going through the contents of the order of learned ITAT dated 06.07.2020, it is observed that before rendering the judgment the learned ITAT has considered entire facts of the case, and has given a categorical finding that, in the case in hand, the assessee produced all the documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of transaction. The learned Assessing Officer, as per the learned ITAT, has failed to produce contrary material evidences to rebut the claim of the assessee and documents produced by him. Learned ITAT has considered the bank statement, demat account, books of account, contract notes which were external documents not in the control of the assessee and therefore the claim of the department of manipulation and for treating the transaction in question as sham and bogus were not proven and found untenable.

¶21

On perusal of the order of learned ITAT and reasonings given therein, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law formulated above does not arise as learned ITAT has logically dealt with questions of fact and law involved by way of reasoned order.

¶22

Placing reliance upon the Apex Court judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anit Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors.:2017 (349) E.L.T 193 (SC), wherein the question of

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[ITA-1/2021]

¶25

admission of an appeal, on substantial question of law was

¶26

considered and it was held as under:-

¶27

“(i) The question raised must involve a substantial question of law which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution.

¶28

(ii) If the Tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court is inclined to take another view of the matter.

¶29

(iii) The Tribunal had acted in gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice.

¶30

We are of the view that learned ITAT, on consideration of material and relevant facts arrived at a logical conclusion and the same must be allowed to rest. There is no gross violation of principles of natural justice and no error has crept in the order of the learned ITAT. The Coordinate Bench of this court in D. B. IT Appeal No. 54/2021 titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur Vs. Ritu Agarwal, in the similar facts and circumstances, has already taken a view that in the appeal at hand, under Section 260A of the Act, no substantial question of law arises.

¶31

In the light of above discussions, the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act does not call for interference and is hereby dismissed, as no substantial question of law worth consideration arises.

¶32

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶33

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶34

Pooja /37

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Prakash Chand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Prakash Chand Sharma

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

Manmeet Singh Soni S/O Rajendra Singh Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Arun Kukreja S/O Sh Satish Kukreja Vs Income Tax Office

Santra Devi W/O Nawal Vs Laxmi Bai Meena D/O Dan Singh Meena

Hargovind Kirad Son of Sh Lakshman Lal Kirad Vs District Collector

Smt Jyanki Devi Teacher Training College Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Jyanki Devi Teacher Training College Vs the State of Rajasthan