Allahabad High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rukmani Devi Jain on 6 November, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh, Arun Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:194875-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 96 of 2025
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Rukmani Devi Jain
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Mahajan
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
And
INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2025
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Rukhmani Devi Jain
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Mahajan
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record.
2. Present appeals have been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising from the common order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "DB" Bench, Agra in ITA Nos. 29/Agr/2021 and 30/Agr/2021. By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal filed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Agra, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for A.Y.s 2015-16 and 2016-17.
3. The assessee was assessed to tax under Section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y.s in issue. For A.Y. 2015-16 against disclosed sales of Rs. 74.32 lacs, the assessee disclosed net profit Rs. 5.94 lacs under Section 44AD of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the issue of cash deposit Rs. 122.31 lacs was examined by the Assessing Officer. He disbelieved the explanation furnished by the assessee. Consequently, treating cash deposit Rs. 122.31 lacs to be representing sales receipts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made a proportionate increase towards gross sales figures. Consequently, he enhanced the business income of the assessee by Rs. 3.83 lacs.
4. That assessment order became subject matter of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. While Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was of the opinion that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, the Tribunal has after considering the entire facts and evidence, reached a conclusion that in the given facts two views were possible. To the extent the Assessing Officer had taken one view and to the extent there was no subject matter of enquiry that was not undertaken during the original assessment proceedings, the jurisdiction to revise the order did not arise to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, under the Act.
5. In support of the conclusion reached the Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax; (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), as followed in CIT Vs. Max India Ltd.; (2007) 295 ITR 282 and Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT; (2010) 321 ITR 92.
6. Looking at the question of law, as proposed, there is no ground of perversity raised (in the order of the Tribunal). Consequently, the order of the Tribunal remains an order of the Appeal Authority passed after due appraisal of evidence and material on record. To the extent revenue does not dispute the findings of the Tribunal that two views were possible and one view was taken by the Assessing Officer, no element of error or prejudice may ever be pressed in such circumstances.
7. Present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) November 6, 2025 Abhilash