Jharkhand High Court
Md.Sayeed vs Acit, Central Circle-I, Patna on 18 November, 2013
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Chief Justice, D.N. Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tax Appeal No.43 of 2010
With
Tax Appeal No.44 of 2010
With
Tax Appeal No.45 of 2010
Md. Sayeed ...... Appellant
Versus
ACIT, Central Circle I, Patna ...... Respondent (in all cases)
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Poddar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Darshana Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate
Order No. 12 th
Dated: 18 November, 2013
1.These appeals are admitted for final hearing and will be heard on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the learned ITAT ignored the fact that the appellant did not supply anything personally in his individual capacity or received any amount personally from A.H.D. Department except as partner of M/s Chhotangapur Cattle Food Supply Co. Then in that case whether the sum of Rs.173.5 lacs being payment made to various persons can be treated as income of the appellant from the Animal Husbandry Department?
(ii) Whether otherwise also, the aforesaid statement given by the appellant before the DSP, CBI, Ranchi on 22.5.1996 in connection with case no. RC35(A)/96Pat can be made the basis for making assessment on substantive basis in the hands of the appellant without any corroborative evidence brought on record by the Revenue, especially in view of the law that the statement given by the accused before the Police is not admissible in evidence?
(iii) Whether the findings given by the ITAT in the case of Deputy CIT Vs. Dipesh Chandak reported in (2007) 110 TTJ (Pat) 366 is applicable to the case of the appellant?
(iv) Whether law as held in the aforesaid case that the defrauded amount, the owner of which is aware of such a fraud and the police has already identified the recipients of the money, prosecution launched and defrauded sum recovered from the recipients, cannot be considered as income within the meaning of section 2(24) chargeable to income tax under Section 4 and cannot form the basis of computing the total income in terms of section 2(45) r/w section 5 of the Act is applicable to the case of the appellant?
(v) Whether the entire receipt of the appellant from AHD department can be treated as income under the Income Tax Act when the word "income" presupposes two important conditions (i) a receipt to tax which the recipient should have absolute command, control and right of disposition, and (ii) the transferor of such funds should have divested all rights in favour of the recipient. If the transferor of such income retains as lien or claim over such receipt, then such a receipt shall either be a loan or accommodation or illegal acquisition which can be recovered by the owner by appropriate legal action?
(vi) Whether the ITAT committed judicial and legal impropriety in assuming the appellant to be guilty of fraudulent withdrawal from the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Bihar and proceeding to reach its conclusions on that erroneous and misplaced premise without any basis as the appellant had no dealings whatsoever with the said department?
2. The matter shall be listed in regular course.
3. Paper books shall be prepared by the Registry of this Court, as required under Rules 190 and 191 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.
(R. Banumathi, C.J.) (D.N. Patel, J.) VK/Ajay