PCIT Vs Smt Renu Agarwal (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court considered the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench “SMC”, Lucknow order dated 17.01.2022 in ITA No.205 of 2020 for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The appeal concerned deletion of an amount added by the Assessing Officer on the allegation of penny stock. The respondent-assessee had succeeded against the assessment order before the CIT(A). The Revenue thereafter filed an Income Tax Appeal against the appellate order, which was dismissed by the ITAT.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Dismisses Penny Stock Tax Appeal, Keeps Question of Law Open
The High Court considered the findings recorded by the ITAT. The ITAT had noted that the CIT(A) had examined the basis of the Assessing Officer’s additions and, while granting relief to the assessee, specifically found no adverse comment in the form of a general or specific statement by the Principal Officer of the stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved. The CIT(A) had also found that the Assessing Officer had referred to facts concerning various unrelated persons whose statements were recorded and had proceeded on unfounded presumptions.
The findings reproduced by the ITAT further recorded that the assessee’s name was not mentioned by any of those persons and that no material relating to the assessee was found at any place investigated by the Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) had relied upon evidence submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as various orders of the Lucknow and other Benches. The ITAT found no adversity in the CIT(A)’s order and noted that Lucknow Benches had, in several cases, granted relief to assessees after relying upon the Delhi High Court judgment in Krishna Devi and others.
The High Court observed that concurrent findings of fact had been recorded by the first appellate authority and the ITAT. On that basis, it held that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal and that the matter was concluded by findings of fact.
Accordingly, the High Court found no good reason to entertain the appeal and dismissed it.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed challenging the order dated 17.01.2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench “SMC” Lucknow in ITA No.205 of 2020 (A.Y. 201415).
The basic question involved in the present appeal is with regard to deletion of some amount which was added by the Assessing Officer on the allegation of penny stock.
The appeal of the respondent – assessee was allowed against the assessment order. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the CIT (Appeal). Against the appellate order the Revenue had filed the aforesaid Income Tax Appeal which has been dismissed by the ITAT.
After detailed discussion, the ITAT has recorded the following findings of fact :
“The above findings recorded by ld. CIT(A) are quite exhaustive whereby he has discussed the basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the additions. While allowing relief to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has specifically held that there is no adverse comment in the forrn of general and specific statement by the Pr. Officer of stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved in these transactions and he held that Assessing Officer only quoted facts pertaining to various completely unrelated persons whose statement were recorded and on the basis of unfounded presumptions. He further held that the name of the appellants were neither quoted by any of such persons nor any material relating to the assessee was found at any place where investigation was done by the investigation Wing. The ld. CIT(A) relying on various orders of Lucknow Benches and other Benches has allowed relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the evidences filed by the assessee before Assessing Officer. I do not find any adversity in the order of ld. CIT(A) specifically keeping in view the fact that Lucknow Benches in a number of cases after relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krishna Devi and others had allowed relief to various assessees.”
The concurrent findings of fact has been recorded by the first appellate authority and the ITAT. Thus, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The matter is concluded by findings of fact.
For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any good reason to entertain this appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed.
