Abdul Rehman Khatri v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
21 Mar 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Abdul Rehman Khatri v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
21 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Abdul Rehman Khatri v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 12/2006 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the addition of Rs.
Decision: Both the appeals stand disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 10 / 2006
Abdul Rehman Khatri
----Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 12 / 2006 Abdul Rehman Khatri
----Appellant Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana for Mr. Sanjay JhanwarFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI
Judgment
21/03/2017
By way of these appeals, the assessee has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowedthe appeal of the department.
2.This court while admitting the appeals has framed followingsubstantial question of law:-
Appeal No. 10/2006:
Under the facts and circumstances of the case andin law whether the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- in
respect of alleged sale proceeds of capital assets wasjustified particularly when it has been held that therewas no such capital asset?
Appeal No. 12/2006
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the addition of Rs. 3,43,865/- being unexplainedcash can be sustained when the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- has already been made being unexplainedsale consideration of `Kholi’ and, thus undisclosedincome of the assessee?
3.We have heard counsel for the parties.
4.Taking into consideration the fact that Rs.8,00,000/-, if it istaken as an income, then addition of Rs.3,43,865/- is contrary toevidence on record which cannot be doubly taxed which was foundas income as per the finding of the tribunal it was out of theamount receipt of Rs.8,00,000/-.
5.In that view of the matter in Appeal No.10/2006, the issueis answered in favour of the department and the appeal standsdismissed. However, in Income Tax Appeal No.12/2006 the issueis answered in favour of the assessee and the same standsallowed.
Both the appeals stand disposed of.
A copy of this judgment be placed in each file.
(MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI),J. (K.S. JHAVERI)ACTING C.J.
BM Gandhi/ 23-24
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.