JASBIR SINGH V. CIT PATIALA

ITA/547/2009

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jasbir Singh against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, concerning an assessment made under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the ITAT's decision, which upheld the assessment of unexplained income based on bank deposits and other sources. The main legal issues revolved around the application of Section 144, the treatment of agricultural and other incomes, and the alleged double taxation of income declared by the appellant's son. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the ITAT's findings and reasoning.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766048 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Agricultural income; Assessment; Double taxation; Income Tax; Unexplained income
• Section: 144; 142(1); 260A

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 547 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 547 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 12, 2009 Jasbir Singh ...Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Patiala. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B' Chandigarh in ITA No. 108/Chandi/2008 dated 31.12.2008, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in finalizing the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without conforming to the proviso to Section 144 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on ITA No. 547 of 2009 2 record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating the deposits in banks out of various known/declared sources being that of agricultural income, interest income and advance from sale of agricultural land duly evidenced by various evidences, so that so the orders of the ITAT are perverse ? iii) Whether on the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating the declared income of son who being of age of majority and duly assessed individually as unexplained income of appellant from unknown sources which leads to double taxation being unwarranted ? iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law” 2. The assessee filed return in pursuance of notice under Section 142 (1) declaring nil income, apart from non-taxable income from agricultural. The Assessing Officer found investments in banks and deposits in the name of the son of the assessee and treating the said amount as unexplained income, additions were made, under Section 144. CIT (A) and the Tribunal upheld the assessment. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. As regards question (i), attention of the learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to second proviso to Section 144. Notice under Section 142 having been served upon the assessee, there was no error in making assessment under Section 144. The question raised cannot be held to be ITA No. 547 of 2009 3 substantial question of law. 5. As regards questions (ii) to (iv), we have perused the findings concurrently recorded by the three authorities. The said findings are based on appreciation of evidence. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities did not appreciate the evidence correctly is not enough to hold that substantial question law arises. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 12, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE "