Taxc/102/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur v. Jai Shankar Vyas

"^,IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FQRCHHATTISGARH AT BILSPURv^^[oTax Case No. 7os^- of^^"APPELLANTCOMMISSIONER OF(Revenue)INCOMETAXRAIPURVERSUSJ^SPONDENT^JAI SHANKAR VYAS,/(Assessee).,...S/o Late Manaklal Vyas,Geedam Road, Jagdalpur,v>^^h^\S£S^\•^?^^-.^•^feJal—-—"DisttBASTAR(C.G)^•S&"XSSESSMENT YEAR2001-02APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THEINCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Vv. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. APPEALS UNDERSECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.1961 Appearance:Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the Appellant.Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(21st April, 2014) 1. These are the tax appeals under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) by the Income Tax Department (the Department) against theorder dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bilaspur Bench, Bilaspur (the Tribunal) in respect of Jai Shankar Vyas (theAssessee) for the Assessment Years (the AYs) 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and1999-2000. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee filed his return for different AYs. In the return, he hadshown 1/4th of the income from the rented property situated at Jagdalpur andBilaspur Road, Raipur. 3. The Assessing Officer (the AO) by separate orders held that the totalrented income was that of the Assessee alone. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed appeals before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A). They were takentogether andwerepartly allowedby thecommonjudgementdated24.10.2007. The CIT-A heldthat the Assessee had only 1/4th income in therented property. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Department filed an appeal beforethe Tribunal. These appeals were dismissed by the order dated 24.11.2008.Hence, the present appeals. THE DECISION 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. The Tax Case No. 102 of 2010and Tax Case No.133 of 2010 had been admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) when suchorder was based on the evidence producedbeforehimforthefirsttime,whichwasadmittedbyhimwithoutcomplyingtherequirement of Rule 46A of the Income TaxRules and without giving any opportunity to theAssessingOfficer torebut or examine thesame?' 7. The counsel for the Department states that in the third case ie Tax CaseNo. 29 of 2013, the same point is involved. In view ofthe same, we haveheard the counsel for the parties on the aforesaid one question in theappeals. 8.In the sale deed in respect of the rented property, the share of theAssessee was shown to be 1/4th. It is on this basis that the CIT-A has heldthat the Assessee had 14th of the rented income. This finding has beenupheld by the Tribunal. 9. According to counsel for the Assessee, the sale deed was filed beforethe AO itself and no fresh evidence was filed before the appetlate court.However, this is disputed by the counsel for the Department. 10. It is not necessary for us to go into this question. The CIT-A had calledfor the remand report on which it was admitted that the Assessee had only% share and it is on the basis of the same, VA, of the rental income wastaken into account. 11. The question as framed before this court was not even raised before theTribunal. There is no justification to permit the Department to raise it for thefirst time before this court. 12. Apart from the above, there is nothing to show that the finding recordedby the CIT-A or the Tribunal was incorrect or is disputed. The Departmentwas given opportunity by calling a remand report where 14th share wasadmitted. 13. There is no merit in the appeals. They are dismissed. Sd/-Chief Justice Sd/-Prashant Kumar MishraJudge