The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Surendra Kumar Agarwal (Huf
High Court
23 Jun 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Surendra Kumar Agarwal (Huf
Date of order
23 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Surendra Kumar Agarwal (Huf, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
srk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Shri Surendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF)
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr. K.R. Chaudhari for appellant.
Mr. Suneet Moholkar for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 23[rd] June,2009
DATE :
P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
First question relates to the deleting the additions made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 17,95,000/-. During the course of hearing, we were taken to the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that the loan of Rs. 17,95,000/- taken by the assessee is genuine, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The question arising out of the impugned order revolves around appreciation of evidence and after appreciating the evidence the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding of fact. Having seen the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we do not see any fault with the view taken by the Tribunal.
So far as second question is concern, it does not survive. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
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.