Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M...

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Sarvodaya Mining Services, Chittorgarh

High Court 13 Apr 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Sarvodaya Mining Services, Chittorgarh
Date of order
13 Apr 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Sarvodaya Mining Services, Chittorgarh, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.213/2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, UdaipurVersusM/s Sarvodaya Mining Services, Chittorgarh Date of Judgment :: 13.04.2016 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. K.K. Bissa, with Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan, for theappellant BY THE COURT : By the judgment impugned dated 30.04.2014,learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while affirming theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)concluded that the Commissioner was right in deleting theaddition as the amount in question was admitted by Mr. ShantiLal Jain in his affidavit furnished before the assessing officerduring the course of assessment proceedings. The only argument advanced before us is that theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal being a fact finding authority isrequired to discuss the details, but that has not been doneand the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has been affirmed without adequate reasons. We do not find any merit in the argumentadvanced. Pertinent to notice that the Income Tax AppellateTribunal in quite unambiguous terms mentioned that Mr.Shanti Lal Jain furnished an affidavit to the assessing officeraccepting that the amount in question belonged to him and itwas at in his hand on substantive basis. The finding arrived is based on re-examination ofrecord as that too reveals from the judgment impugned.Looking to this factual background, we do not find any meritin this appeal. The same is dismissed. ,J. , J. Pramod
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan