Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Vihar
[Citation -2020-LL-0205-141]

Citation 2020-LL-0205-141
Appellant Name Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Chhattisgarh
Respondent Name Ashok Vihar
Court HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/02/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags search and seizure • undisclosed income • evidentiary value • question of law • profit on sale • sale of land
Bot Summary: On filing the return by the Assessee declaring a total income of Rs.2,54,880/-, the case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and the proceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby an addition to the extent of Rs.1,25,000/- was made by disallowing the expenses and further added Rs. 6,37,74,442/- towards the undisclosed income from sale of land, and assessed the income to the tune of Rs. 6,41,54,320/-. Whether on points of law and facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 6,37,74,442/- thereby ignoring the facts brought on records by the AO that as per the transaction recorded in the seized pen drive and loose sheets showed the profit on sale of that amount, thereby rendering the decision which is perverse 2. Whether in law and on facts of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 6,37,74,442/- treating the entries made as fake, ignoring the facts that the entries made in the seized materials are matching with the business affairs of the assessee and ignoring the probability that no unrelated party can have such specific information, thereby rendering the decision which is perverse 3. Whether on the point of law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in giving a twisted and contrived finding thereby ignoring the discrepancies in the documentary evidences brought on record, and ignoring the ratio of precedent of preponderance of probability as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT thereby rendering the decision which is perverse 4. Whether on the point of law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in accepting the finding of the CIT(A) that there is no evidentiary value of the transactions as reflected in the seized pen drive during the course of 3 search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, thereby ignoring the presumption of law as per the substantive legal provisions u/s 132(4A) of the Act, thereby rendering the decision which is perverse 5. Whether on the point of law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) who has erred by giving a finding which is contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 10164 of 2010, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the material found from the premise of connected person can be utilized as evidence for making addition in the income of the assessee, thereby rendering the decision which is perverse. Considering the nature of pleadings raised and also the discussion made by the Tribunal in detail, we are of the view that the decision has been rendered by the Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does not involve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law.


1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Tax Case No. 100 of 2019 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus M/s. Ashok Vihar, Shop No. 1 & 2, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, District Raipur, (C.G.) Respondent For Appellant/Revenue : Shri Amit Chaudhari and Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocates Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 05.02.2020 1. appeal is arising from order dated 01.07.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in IT(SS)A No.173/RPR/2014. 2. On filing return by Assessee declaring total income of Rs.2,54,880/-, case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and proceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby addition to extent of Rs.1,25,000/- was made by disallowing expenses and further added Rs. 6,37,74,442/- towards undisclosed income from sale of land, and assessed income to tune of Rs. 6,41,54,320/-. 2 3. course and proceedings pursued by Department made Assessee to feel aggrieved, who filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) where appeal was allowed deleting addition of Rs. 6,37,74,442/-. This made Appellant-Department to take up matter before Tribunal referring to facts and figures, where interference was declined and appeal was dismissed. This, in turn is put to challenge in this appeal preferred by Revenue, suggesting following questions as substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on points of law and facts and circumstances of case, learned ITAT was justified in confirming order of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 6,37,74,442/- thereby ignoring facts brought on records by AO that as per transaction recorded in seized pen drive and loose sheets showed profit on sale of that amount, thereby rendering decision which is perverse? 2. Whether in law and on facts of case, learned ITAT was justified in confirming order of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 6,37,74,442/- treating entries made as fake, ignoring facts that entries made in seized materials are matching with business affairs of assessee and ignoring probability that no unrelated party can have such specific information, thereby rendering decision which is perverse? 3. Whether on point of law and on facts and circumstances of case, learned ITAT was justified in giving twisted and contrived finding thereby ignoring discrepancies in documentary evidences brought on record, and ignoring ratio of precedent of preponderance of probability as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995 214 ITR 801 SC) thereby rendering decision which is perverse? 4. Whether on point of law and on facts and circumstances of case, learned ITAT was justified in accepting finding of CIT(A) that there is no evidentiary value of transactions as reflected in seized pen drive during course of 3 search and seizure action u/s 132 of Act, thereby ignoring presumption of law as per substantive legal provisions u/s 132(4A) of Act, thereby rendering decision which is perverse? 5. Whether on point of law and on facts and circumstances of case, learned ITAT was justified in confirming order of learned CIT(A) who has erred by giving finding which is contrary to ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 10164 of 2010, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that material found from premise of connected person can be utilized as evidence for making addition in income of assessee, thereby rendering decision which is perverse. 4. Heard Shri Amit Chaudhari, learned standing counsel for Department at length. 5. Considering nature of pleadings raised and also discussion made by Tribunal in detail, we are of view that decision has been rendered by Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does not involve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law. 6. This appeal is devoid of any merit so as to have it entertained in terms of Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961. Interference is declined and appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Amit Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Vihar
Report Error