In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Rajesh Kumar Bansal, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals do not warrant admission andconsequently the same are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
ITA No.80 of 2009Date of decision 2.2.2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant
Versus
Shri Rajesh Kumar Bansal... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga ,Advocate for the appellant
1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This order shall dispose of two appeals being ITA Nos. 80 and
81 of 2009 as by a common order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh both the appealswere disposed of namely, ITA Nos. 940 and 941/Chandi of 2006 pertainingto the assessment year 2000-01. The issue is identical which involve twogodowns built by two brothers. The Assessing Officer placed reliance onthe Valuation report which was presented for the purposes of obtaining loanfrom the Bank.According to Tribunal the CIT (A) erred in law in holdingthat there was no material on record to justify the higher cost ofconstruction. The explanation furnished by the assessee was foundreasonable. It was also found that the revenue did not bring anything onrecord suggesting that expenses incurred were more than the one declaredand the Valuation report alone cannot constitute basis for making additions.
Having heard the learned counsel we find that these are pure
ITA 80 of 2009
findings of fact and would not give rise to a question of law much less asubstantive question of law. The appeals do not warrant admission andconsequently the same are dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge
2.2.2010okg
(Ajay Tewari)Judge
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.