CIT v. Shabbir Khan
[Citation -2017-LL-0526-127]

Citation 2017-LL-0526-127
Appellant Name CIT
Respondent Name Shabbir Khan
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/05/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags rejection of books of accounts • disallowance of depreciation • personal use • business purpose
Bot Summary: In all these appeals involve common questions of law and facts and they relate to same assessee, hence are decided by this common judgment. Taking note of the gross profit ration of provisions years and other facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax interfered in the assessment order. The only question raised herein is that the estimation made by the assessing authority was not required to be interfered with by the Commissioner. We find that it is essentially a question of act and not a substantial question of law. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the first and second questions so framed being questions of fact or atleast no substantial question of law is involved. So far as question No.3 is concerned, it pertains to depreciation on car, and the amount involved therein is meagre. In any case given the third issue cannot be said to be a substantial question of law and otherwise also, the view taken by the Tribunal is proper on facts of this case.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 364 / 2009 CIT ----Appellant Versus Shabbir Khan ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 53 / 2010 CIT ----Appellant Versus Shabir Khan ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 61 / 2010 CIT ----Appellant Versus Shabbir Khan ----Respondent D.B. Cross Objection Civil No. 18 / 2012 Shabbir Khan ----Petitioner Versus Cit ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. K.D. Mathur in Appeals and in cross-objection for respondent For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal in Appeals and in cross-objection for appellant (2 of 4) [ ITA-364/2009] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 26/05/2017 1. In all these appeals involve common questions of law and facts and they relate to same assessee, hence are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeals filed by department and appeal of assessee was partly allowed. 3.. While admitting appeals, this Court has framed substantial question of law: Appeal No. 364/2009: (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in restricting trading additions without any basis when invoking of provisions of section 145 of IT Act has been upheld? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of law ITAT was justified in deleting disallowance of depreciation of vehicle made on account of personal use holding it to be statutory deduction u/s 32 of Act? In Appeal No. 53/2010: Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in restricting trading additions without any basis when invoking of provisions of Section 145 of IT Act has been upheld? In Appeal No.61/2010: Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in restricting trading additions without any basis when invoking of (3 of 4) [ ITA-364/2009] provisions of Section 145 of IT Act has been upheld? 4. Heard learned counsel for parties. 5. Now issue is covered by decision in case of assessee himself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 93/2010, decided on 22nd February, 2010, wherein it has been held as under: We have gone through impugned order and find that on rejection of books of accounts as per Section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, assessment was made on estimation of gross profit. Taking note of gross profit ration of provisions years and other facts, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) interfered in assessment order. only question raised herein is that estimation made by assessing authority was not required to be interfered with by Commissioner (Appeals). We find that it is essentially question of act and not substantial question of law. Once books of accounts were rejected, estimation has to be made but it should be on facts and reasonable. According to us Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal have taken proper view on facts. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with first and second questions so framed being questions of fact or atleast no substantial question of law is involved. So far as question No.3 is concerned, it pertains to depreciation on car, and amount involved therein is meagre. Further, car was used for business purposes also, in those circumstances, depreciation as claimed can to be denied, and accordingly, addition made on that count has rightly been deleted. In any case given third issue cannot be said to be substantial question of law and otherwise also, view taken by Tribunal is proper on facts of this case. 6. In view of above, issue is answered in favour of assessee against department. 7. All these appeals are dismissed. (4 of 4) [ ITA-364/2009] 8. Cross-objection is also disposed off. 9. copy of this judgment be placed in each of file. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B.M. Gandhi/51-54 CIT v. Shabbir Khan
Report Error