The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kota v. Shri Govind Ram Modi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 836 / 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota ----Appellant Versus Shri Govind Ram Modi, C/o M/s. Agarwal Flooring Stone Co., Morak Station, Kota. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo JainFor Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 06/02/2018 By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasallowed the appeal preferred by the assessee reversing the viewtaken by the CIT(A). This Court while admitting the matter framed the following question of law:- “Whether under the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in settingaside the order of CIT passed u/s 263 specificallywhen the Assessing Officer failed to make properinvestigation and passed an order prejudicial to theinterest of revenue?” Counsel for the respondent contended that against the same judgment, the appeal was preferred which has been decided by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 95/2008 (TheCommissioner of Income Tax Kota vs. Smt. Manju Devi Modi)and other connected matter decided on 17[th] August, 2017 wherein it has been observed as under:- “4. Counsel for the appellant contended that CIT (A)while considering the issue under Section 263 hasgiven cogent reasons and the Tribunal has wronglyallowed the appeal and contended that the view takenby the revisional authority to proceed under Section263 was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, andtherefore, the view taken by the revisional authoritywas required to be accepted and view taken by theTribunal is required to be reversed. 5. Counsel for the respondent has taken us toobservation of the tribunal in para 14, which reads asunder:- “So far as acceptance of claimed rental income fromdifferent shops at Surat is concerned, there wasnothing on record before the Ld. CIT to come to thisconclusion that more rental income than claimed bythe assessee was received. The Ld. Cit was thus notjustified in treating the assessment order in this regardas erroneous and when it was not erroneous thee wasno question of it being prejudicial to the interest ofrevenue. We thus while setting aside revisional orderin question in this regard direct restoration ofassessment order accepting the claimed householdexpenses and rental income from different shops atSurat.”different shops at Surat is concerned, there wasnothing on record before the Ld. CIT to come to thisconclusion that more rental income than claimed bythe assessee was received. The Ld. Cit was thus notjustified in treating the assessment order in this regardas erroneous and when it was not erroneous thee wasno question of it being prejudicial to the interest ofrevenue. We thus while setting aside revisional orderin question in this regard direct restoration ofassessment order accepting the claimed householdexpenses and rental income from different shops atSurat.” 6. In that view of the matter, the interest incomewhich was received from the debtor and household andother expenses in view of decision in S.A. Builder'scase [288-ITR-1(SC)] which was sought by theTribunal to be relied upon is required to be accepted.which was received from the debtor and household andother expenses in view of decision in S.A. Builder'scase [288-ITR-1(SC)] which was sought by theTribunal to be relied upon is required to be accepted. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee against the department. The appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS) J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. A.Sharma/98