Cit. Kol.i Vs. Bimal Agarwal

Cit. Kol.i vs Bimal Agarwal

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 29, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1163617

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1163617
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Soumitra Pal
Decided On: Aug 29, 2014
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Direct Taxation

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit. Kol.i

Respondent

Bimal Agarwal

Excerpt

.....order dated 28th november, 2013 passed by itat ‘b’ bench in ita437kol/2011 in the case of bimal agarwal and ita438kol/2011 in the case of arun agarwal both for the assessment year 2004- 05 on the following questions: “(i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal erred in law and was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by revenue without considering the facts of the case as well as applicable statute in the case and is therefore pervers.and liable to be set aside ?. (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal erred in law and was not justified in law in deleting the addition of rs.15 lacs solely relying on the observations made by the commissioner of income tax (appeals) and without appreciating that there was total lack of reliable evidence and explanation on the part of the assessee in spite of repeated opportunities being given ?. (iii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal erred in law and was not justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee mechanically and is bad in the eye of law ?. (iv) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned tribunal erred in law as it allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and there is perversity for non consideration of the materials facts on record transpired after the detailed enquiry made by assessing officer and the same ought to be set aside by the hon'ble court ?.” mrs.gutgutia, learned advocate for tribunal’s order should be set aside and the revenue submitted that the prayed for remand of the matter for further enquiry to rebut the claim of the assessees by collecting advers.evidence. we find that earlier the commissioner of income tax (appeal) by an order under section 263 of the income tax act had “directed the assessing officer to reframe the assessment order after making requisite enquiries on the issues discussed”. the issue involved.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT No.53 of 2014 G.A.No.1638 of 2014 CIT.

KOL.-I Versus BIMAL AGARWAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 29th August, 2014.

Ms.A.G.Gutgutia, Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Sengupta, Advocate The Court : This appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the Revenue against the consolidated order dated 28th November, 2013 passed by ITAT ‘B’ Bench in ITA437Kol/2011 in the case of Bimal Agarwal and ITA438Kol/2011 in the case of Arun Agarwal both for the assessment year 2004- 05 on the following questions: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law and was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by Revenue without considering the facts of the case as well as applicable statute in the case and is therefore perveRs.and liable to be set aside ?.

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law and was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.15 Lacs solely relying on the observations made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and without appreciating that there was total lack of reliable evidence and explanation on the part of the assessee in spite of repeated opportunities being given ?.

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law and was not justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee mechanically and is bad in the eye of law ?.

(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned Tribunal erred in law as it allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and there is perversity for non consideration of the materials facts on record transpired after the detailed enquiry made by Assessing Officer and the same ought to be set aside by the Hon'ble Court ?.” MRS.Gutgutia, learned Advocate for Tribunal’s order should be set aside and the Revenue submitted that the prayed for remand of the matter for further enquiry to rebut the claim of the assessees by collecting adveRs.evidence.

We find that earlier the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) by an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act had “directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment order after making requisite enquiries on the issues discussed”.

The issue involved is whether the two assessees had offered explanation about the nature and source of each of them having received cash gift of Rs.15 Lacs from a NRE of Dubai.

We find from the impugned order of the Tribunal, wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has been quoted that upon reassessment on remand, the Commissioner was satisfied about the nature and source of the gifts.

The Tribunal found concurrently on facts.

We, therefore, find that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

The application and the appeal are both dismissed.

(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) km AR(CR)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Cit. Kol.i vs Bimal Agarwal Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge Soumitra Pal