Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abhishek Corporation - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/667285 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Nov-29-2001 |
| Judge | S.P. Bharucha, C.J.I.,; Shivaraj V.Patil and; Arijit Pasayat, JJ. |
| Reported in | [2002]255ITR45(SC); (2002)10SCC736 |
| Acts | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 68, 132(1, 134(4A) and 256(2); Appellate Tribunal Rules - Rules 10 and 29 |
| Appellant | Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Respondent | Abhishek Corporation |
| Appellant Advocate | Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General,; Neera Gupta and; |
| Respondent Advocate | H.A. Raichura, ; S.H. Raichura and ; Shailendra Singh, Ad |
| Disposition | Appeal allowed |
Excerpt:
.....electrical wing of railways. he volunteered for the post of diesel mechanic grade ii and was promoted to that post. he was again promoted as diesel mechanic grade i. these postings were on mechanical side and ex-cadre postings. he had been holding the said post for a period of more than 12 years. a policy decision was taken by the railway administration only on or about 15.10.2001. prior thereto, there was no requirement to repatriate an employee to his parent cadre after a period of four years. the policy decision, furthermore, was not given immediate effect. despite the said policy decision, the appellant was permitted to work for another two years. a reversion order was passed thereafter. supreme court considering the circumstances of case while upholding the validity of the order of..........of the following question : 'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal, having held that the assessee has received unaccountedreceipts, was justified in law in holding that the assessing officer has to discharge the onus in respect of on money by showing that the assessee has invested rs. 1,58,59,400 out of such receipts whereas the claim of the assessee for extra expenditure was found to be incorrect ?' 4. it did so on an appreciation of evidence and based on certain judgments of that high court. 5. we have seen the relevant portions of the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal from which the question has arisen. we think that the question does require the consideration of the high court we do not, however, express any view on the.....
Judgment:1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The High Court declined to call for a reference, inter alia, of the following question :
'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, having held that the assessee has received unaccountedreceipts, was justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has to discharge the onus in respect of on money by showing that the assessee has invested Rs. 1,58,59,400 out of such receipts whereas the claim of the assessee for extra expenditure was found to be incorrect ?'
4. It did so on an appreciation of evidence and based on certain judgments of that High Court.
5. We have seen the relevant portions of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal from which the question has arisen. We think that the question does require the consideration of the High Court We do not, however, express any view on the merits of the case on either side.
6. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside, in so far as it relates to question No. 2 before the High Court. The said question (quoted above) shall stand referred to the High Court for its consideration and the Tribunal shall draw up an appropriate statement of case.
7. No order as to costs.