This benches dismissed Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue against the assessee. The court held that since a coordinate bench had already decided the identical controversy in a similar fact pattern, the instant appeals did not raise any substantial question of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 57/2021
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kalawati Sharma, C-42, Gokul Path, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 58/2021
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma, C-42, Gokul Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. for Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
17/05/2022
Both these appeals have been filed by the revenue. At the very outset, it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the revenue that similar controversy has already been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 06.04.2022 passed in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.22/2021 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Sanjay Chhabra. He has prayed to decided the instant appeals in the same terms as
(2 of 3)
[ITA-57/2021]
observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Chhabra (supra). He submitted that the present appeals pertain to issue of Penny Stock.
In the order dated 06.04.2022 passed in the case of Sanjay Chhabra (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-
“Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in (2011) 1 SCC 673, as to what would be substantial question of law, only demolishes the case of the appellant herein because on principles, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as contained in Para 19 to 23 thereof, present is not a case where the finding of the Tribunal suffers from ignorance of any material evidence or based on no evidence much less “wrong inference drawn from proved facts by erroneous application of law” or “where the Tribunal has wrongly cast the burden of proof. The argument advanced on the basis of the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra), does not apply to the facts of the present case at all. The Tribunal’s findings are based on material placed on record.
The aspect of human probability, in the present case, only goes against the Revenue because in the present case, a raid was conducted and in that process, statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, which was, later on, retracted by the Assessee. In a situation like this, where the office premises are sealed for many days and during that period, a statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal’s view that only the basis of such retracted statement, addition could not be justified without any other material admissible in evidence, warrants no interference as it is not a substantial question of law”
In view of the admission made by learned counsel for the revenue as also in light of the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay
(3 of 3)
[ITA-57/2021]
Chhabra (supra), we are of the view that these appeals do not involve any substantial questions of law.
Thus, the appeals fail and the same are hereby
dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
JKP/5-6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the instant appeals involve substantial questions of law given the co-ordinate bench has already decided a similar controversy.
Whether the Tribunal's view that addition based on a retracted section 132(4) statement warrants interference constitutes a substantial question of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vijay Kumar Talwar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, DelhiReferred¶24
(2011) 1 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
Sumati DayalReferred¶24
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Sanjay ChhabraRelied on¶19
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.22/2021
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I
Smt. Kalawati Sharma
Prakash Gupta
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
