Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr. - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Shilpa Associates v. Income-tax Officer 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1162 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED CIT & Ors. v. Ranchi Club Ltd. 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0531 (SC)
REFERRED National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC)
REFERRED Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex v. CIT & Ors. 1996 TaxPub(DT) 1201 (Pat-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Namdang Tea Co. India Ltd 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1294 (Gau-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Wiliard India Ltd. 1993 TaxPub(DT) 0117 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0505 (SC)
REFERRED Monohar Gidwany & Ors. v. CIT & Ors. 1983 TaxPub(DT) 0190 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. S. Nelliappan 1967 TaxPub(DT) 0368 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6597 (Raj-HC) IN THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RAJESH BALIA & R.P. VYAS, JJ. Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr. ITA No. 82 of 2002 & ITA No. 84 of 2002 7 November, 2005 A.Y. 1993-94 Petitioner by: Arun Bhansali Respondent by: K.K. Bissa JUDGMENT The IT Appeal No. 84 of 2002 filed by Zakir Hussain assessee, relates to assessment year 1993-94 and arises out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in appeals filed by the present appellant Zakir Hussain as well as appeal filed in respect of same assessment year by Smt. Huma Hussain, wife of the present appellant Zakir Hussain. 2. The questions framed at the time of admitting the appeal No. 84 of 2002 relating to assessment year 1993-94 were as under : '(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that permission to raise additional grounds in appeal can be granted only if such additional grounds are also taken within the period of limitation for filing the appeal, particularly when the question sought to be raised was purely a question of law? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee which was pure question of law raised on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision settling the law on the issue? (iii) If the additional grounds are taken into consideration whether levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B, without there being specific directions to that effect could be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR 200 (SC) : (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0531 (SC)? (iv) In the facts and circumstances, the finding that the explanation of Smt. Huma about the receipt of cash gifts from her parents at the time of her marriage and thereafter during the previous year 1991 in which marriage took place until the assessment order 1993-94 has been rejected contrary to material on record and without holding any enquiry into correctness of explanation when the initial burden of proving the source of instalment (sic investment) has been discharged by the assessee, the evidence placed by her goes unrebutted? (v) If the answer to the aforesaid question is found to be negative whether the additions could be made on account of undisclosed income relatable to such gifts at all? SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6597 (Raj-HC)

IN THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

RAJESH BALIA & R.P. VYAS, JJ.

Zakir Hussain v. CIT & Anr.

ITA No. 82 of 2002 & ITA No. 84 of 2002

7 November, 2005 A.Y. 1993-94

Petitioner by: Arun Bhansali

Respondent by: K.K. Bissa

JUDGMENT

The IT Appeal No. 84 of 2002 filed by Zakir Hussain assessee, relates to assessment year 1993-94 and arises out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in appeals filed by the present appellant Zakir Hussain as well as appeal filed in respect of same assessment year by Smt. Huma Hussain, wife of the present appellant Zakir Hussain.

2. The questions framed at the time of admitting the appeal No. 84 of 2002 relating to assessment year 1993-94 were as under :

'(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that permission to raise additional grounds in appeal can be granted only if such additional grounds are also taken within the period of limitation for filing the appeal, particularly when the question sought to be raised was purely a question of law?

(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee which was pure question of law raised on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision settling the law on the issue?

(iii) If the additional grounds are taken into consideration whether levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B, without there being specific directions to that effect could be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR 200 (SC) : (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0531 (SC)?

(iv) In the facts and circumstances, the finding that the explanation of Smt. Huma about the receipt of cash gifts from her parents at the time of her marriage and thereafter during the previous year 1991 in which marriage took place until the assessment order 1993-94 has been rejected contrary to material on record and without holding any enquiry into correctness of explanation when the initial burden of proving the source of instalment (sic investment) has been discharged by the assessee, the evidence placed by her goes unrebutted?

(v) If the answer to the aforesaid question is found to be negative whether the additions could be made on account of undisclosed income relatable to such gifts at all?