Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

Kumar Suman Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Ce on 25 April, 2012

Author: Shiva Kirti Singh

Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Vikash Jain

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   Miscellaneous Appeal No.721 of 2010
                 ======================================================
                 Kumar Suman Singh son of Sri Shyam Sundar Prasad, R/o F-62, P.C.
                 Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Dist. Patna.
                                                                      .... .... Appellant/s
                                                  Versus
                 1.Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Central), Patna.
                 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna.
                                                                     .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    : Mr. K.N. Prasad, Advocate
                                            Mr. K.C.K.Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s    : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Advocate.
                                            Mrs. Archana Sinha, Junior Standing Counsel
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
                           and
                           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
                 ORAL ORDER
                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)


6   25-04-2012

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the department.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the CIT should not have interfered with the order of the A.O. in exercise of power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act ( in short the Act) unless he came to a definite finding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In support of the proposition that both the conditions must be satisfied for exercise of power under section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed upon several judgments including that of the Supreme Court 2 Patna High Court MA No.721 of 2010 (6) dt.25-04-2012 2/3 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Max India Ltd, [295 ITR 282 (SP)].

The proposition of law advanced before us cannot be doubted. On going through the relevant orders it is apparent that the A.O. had not conducted the inquiry into the claim of gift of Rs. 3,00000/- in a proper manner and his order was erroneous as it showed no application of mind to the relevant facts and contained no reasons for coming to the conclusion in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has also given a similar finding in paragraph 6 of the order under appeal.

In the facts of the case when the CIT and the Tribunal both have found the order of the A.O. on the point of inquiry to be erroneous and wanting in application of mind and recording of reasons and since that order is clearly prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal to warrant interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J) M.Rahman/-

3/3