Taxc/29/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jai Shankar Vyas

I\IBJ‘\~Wig:&5%“iiu’V§,,wwAmNm(r«.»MmmmWww$w;y,uTHE[:HN’BLE]OHIGH [ OF][ JUDICATURE][ FOR]/CHHATTISGARH‘ [ BILSPR]UTax Case N0. Q;01" gelY/gsm“[3]W@ISSIONER[O]FICEANOMTXRAIPUR (/ml SI-LANARK[VYAS,r].S/oLate Manaklal[Vas,]yGeedam Road,Jgd,aa’lpurD)istt.BASTAR(C.GR1 99942000.4SSESSMENT _APPEAL UNDER NCOME TAX ACT HI_GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON’BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. APPEALS UN_DER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 Appearance:Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the Appeiiant.Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(215‘[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][ the]orderdated24.11.2008passedbytheincome TaxAppeiiateTribunal,Biiaspur Bench, Biiaspur (the Tribunal) in respect of Jai Shankar Vyas (theAssessee) for the Assessment Years (the AYs) 2001-2002, 2002—2003 and1999-2000. THE FACTS2. The Assessee filedhisreturnfor different AYs.in thereturn, he hadshown[‘A‘h]of the income from the rented property situated at Jagdaipur andBiiaspur Road, Raipur. 2 3. The Assessing[Officer](the[AO)][ by][ separate][ orders][ held][ that][ the][ total]rented income was[that of][ the][ Assessee][ alone.] 4._Aggrieved[by]the[aforesaid][ order,][ the][ Assessee][ med][ appeals][ before the]CommissionerofincomeTax(Appeals)(theCIT-A).They weretakentogetherandwerepartlyallowedbythecommonjudgementdated24.10.2007.The CIT-A held that the Assessee[had][ only]1/4‘“income in therented property. 5. Aggrieved by the[aforesaid][ order,][ the][ Department][ tiled][ an][ appeal][ before]the Tribunal. These[appeals][ were][ dismissed][ by][ the][ order][ dated][ 24.1][ 1][ .2008.]Hence, the present appeals. THE DEClSlON 6. We have heard[counsel][ for][ the]parties.The Tax Case No. 102[of][ 2010]andTaxCaseNo.133of 2010hadbeenadmittedonthefollowingsubstantial questions[of][ law:] 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case.the Hon'ble ITAT[was]justmedinconfirming the[order][ of][ the][ CIT(A)][ when][ such]order wasbasedontheevidenceproducedbeforehimforthefirsttime,whichwasadmittedbyhimwithoutcomplyingtherequirementofRule 46Aof theIncomeTaxRules and without giving[any][ opportunity][ to][ the]AssessingOfficertorebutorexaminethesame?’ 7. The counsel for the[Department][ states][ that][ in][ the][ third][ case][ ie][ Tax][ Case]No. 29 of 2013, the same‘point[ is][ involved.]In view of the same,[we][ have]heardthecounselfor thepartiesontheaforesaid onequestionintheappeals. 8.ln the sale deedin respect of the rented property,[the][ share][ of][ the]Assessee was shown to be1/4‘".lt is on this basis that the [ has][ held]that the Assesseehad W“of therentedincome.This hndinghas been\M.»upheld by the[Tribunal.] 9. According to counsel for the Assessee, the sale deed w‘as flled beforethe AOitself and no fresh evidence was filed before the appellate court.However, this is disputed by the counsei for the Department. 10.It is not necessary for us to go into this question. The CIT-A had cailedfor the remand report on whichit was admitted that the Assessee had only1/41A share anditis on the basis of the same, of therental 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 raiseit for thefirst time before this court. 12. Apart from the above, there is nothing to show that the tinding recordedby the CIT-A or the Tribunal was incorrect or is disputed. The Departmentwasgivenopportunity bycalling a remandreport where1/4‘"share wasadmitted. 13. There is no merit in the appeals. They are dismissed. 'Sd/-Sd/—Chief JusticePrashant Kumar MishraJudge