AI Insights
Rakesh Kumar Gupta appealed against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, which dated back to 8th July 2019. The appeal concerned the additions made to his income, which were claimed to be undisclosed. The primary contention was the source of cash deposits in a joint bank account held with his father, which the tax authorities attributed to undisclosed income. The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously upheld these additions, leading to Gupta's appeal to the High Court. The High Court found the questions raised to be factual rather than substantial questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758364 (HC-AGRA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
13-02-2020
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"1 Court No. 7 Case : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 12 of 2020 Appellant : Rakesh Kumar Gupta son of Late Naresh Kumar Gupta, Resident of 1281 Shri Krishna Bajaj, Station Road, Mainpuri Respondent : Commissioner Of Income Tax, Agra Counsel for Appellant : Anwar Hussain Counsel for Respondent : Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has raised three substantial questions of law in respect of the judgment and order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, dated 8th July, 2019. The substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellant, read as follows : “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,31,582/ and Rs. 43,804/U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in disbelieving the affidavit filed by the father of the assessee who had testified the availability of money as a result of agriculture produce sold and past savings duly deposited in bank account. (iii)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals)?” 2. We notice from the papers before us that the learned Tribunal has proceeded to decide the appeal of the appellant, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), being the first appellate authority who confirmed the assessment order dated 18th February, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (4), Mainpuri. 3. The questions of law, as set out hereinabove, in our view, 2 are not substantial questions of law but are essentially factual in nature. The reasons for this conclusion will appear hereunder. 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 14,31,582/ can be sustained or not is a factual issue that was specifically gone into by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 18th February, 2014, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow : “....Thus it is clear that in the relevant assessment year the assessee has deposited cash. If in the years prior to assessment year under consideration the assessee has deposited the amount as it has been deposited in the relevant assessment year, agriculture income could have been accepted. Therefore the amount which has been deposited in joint account held with his father is the money of assessee himself from undisclosed amount. Since in financial year 200910 Rs. 290000/ was deposited and assessee's father has agriculture land, the sum of Rs. 200000/ can be treated to have been invested in margin money out of agriculture income of father. Thus it is clear that the assessee could explain source of availability of Rs. 909096/ out of investment made at Rs. 2340678/ and the balance amount of Rs. 1431582/ has not been explained. Therefore amount of Rs. 1431582/ is added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income.” 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in respect of the assessment order dated 18th February, 2014, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer dated 18th February, 2014, with the following reasons : “5-3 fu.kZ; 'ks;j ekftZu euh es fuosf'kr #0 23]04]678@& ds laca/k es vihykFkhZ us crk;k gS fd mlus viuh jksdM ls #0 7]09]096@& rFkk 'ks\"k vius firk }kjk d`f\"k mit dh fcdzh ls izkIr /ku ls fuosf'kr fd;k gSA vk;dj vf/kdkjh us #0 7]09]096@& ds jksdM ds fuos'k dks lgh ekuk] fdarq vihykFkhZ ds firk }kjk fuosf'kr jkf'k esa ls dsoy #0 2]00]000@& ds nkos dks Lohdkj fd;kA vihykFkhZ us crk;k gS fd og vkSj mlds firk la;qDr #Ik ls jgrs gS vkSj muds ikl 50 ch?kk tehu gSA mUgksusa 2-5 o\"kZ dh Qly dks ekpZ ls vDVwcj 10 rd csp fn;k FkkA muds firk }kjk fuosf'kr jkf'k dk fooj.k fuEuor gSA vkyw dh fcdzh & ekpZ 10 esa 3]50]600 xsgwa dh fcdzh & tqykbZ 10 esa 3]45]800 /kku dh fcdzh & vDVwcj 10 es 5]50]900 firk th dh Loa; dh iqjkuh jksdM esa ls 3]84]282 16]31]582 mijksDr ds laca/k esa d`f\"k mRiknd e.Mh lfefr] eSuiqjh ls izkIr jlhnsa izLrqr 3 dh xbZ] ftlesa fnukad 02-07-2010 dks 330 fDoaVy xsgwa dh fcdzh ls #0 3]37]838@& vkSj fnukad 04-10-2010 dks 850-15 fDoaVy /kku dh fcdzh ls #0 5]37]180@& dh izkfIr fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA fu/kkZj.k dh izfdz;k ds nkSjku fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us vihykFkhZ ls d`f\"k mit dh fcdzh dk lk{; izLrqr djus dk dgk Fkk] fdarq rc Hkh vihykFkhZ us dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;kA fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us ik;k fd vihykFkhZ us foRrh; o\"kZ 2009&10 esa vius cSad [kkrs esa #0 2]90]000@& tek fd;k gS vkSj foRrh; o\"kZ 2011&12 esa dqN Hkh tek ugh fd;k gSA blds foijhr foRrh; o\"kZ 2010&11 esa #0 15]02]220@& dh cMh jkf'k tek gqbZ gSA fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dk dguk gS fd ;fn laxr o\"kZ ds iwoZ o\"kZ o vkxs ds o\"kZ esa Hkh laxr o\"kZ dh rjg tek jgrk rks bls d`f\"k vk; ekuk tk ldrk FkkA fdarq izLrqr lk{;ksa ls ,slk yxrk gS fd laxr o\"kZ esa tek dh xbZ jkf'k dks d`f\"k vk; ds vk/kkj ij ifjHkkf\"kr ugh fd;k tk ldk gSA o\"kZ 2009& 10 es tek dh xbZ #0 2]90]000@& dh jkf'k dks ns[krs gq, vkSj ;g ns[krs gq, fd vihykFkhZ ds firk ds ikl d`f\"k Hkwfe gS] fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us #0 2]00]000@& dh d`f\"k vk; firk ds gkFk esa mfpr ik;hA eSus fu/kkZj.k vkns'k es of.kZr rF;ksa vkSj vihykFkhZ }kjk fyf[kr fuosnu esa fn;s x;s rdksZ ij fopkj dj fy;k gSSA esjs fopkj esa vihykFkhZ ds firk }kjk fd;s x;s fuos'k ds nkos ds laca/k es mfpr lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;s x;sA tks Hkh lk{; miyC/k djk;s x;s gSa mlls vihykFkhZ ds firk dh #0 16]31]582@& ds fuos'k dh l{kerk fl) ugh gksrhA xsgwa dh fcdzh vkSj /kku dh fcdzh ds laca/k esa tks lk{; esjs lEeq[k izLrqr fd;s x;s gaS] mudks fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k D;ksa ugh izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa dksbZ Li\"Vhdj.k ugh fn;k x;k gSA lkFk gh lkFk ;g ekuuk Hkh dfBu gS fd ek= 50 ch?kk d`f\"k Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ O;fDr 330 fDoaVy xsgwa vkSj 850 fDoaVy /kku dh mit dj ldrk gSA vxj ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd ;g mit yxHkx
Other Referred Cases
Smt. Prem Sundari vs. CIT
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
Non-Compete Agreement
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026