Case Law Details
Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj Vs CIT (Appeals) (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The Madras High Court, in a significant decision, has set aside an appellate order dated 11.10.2023, wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj. The case revolves around the inclusion of Rs.23 Crores as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposed to be taxed under Section 115BBE.
Detailed Analysis: Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj filed income tax returns for the assessment year 2020-2021, declaring a total income of Rs.53,10,01,450. The assessing officer included Rs.23 Crores as income under Section 68, proposing taxation under Section 115BBE. The petitioner contended that the sum represented a genuine unsecured loan from M/s. Magunta Exports, Nellore. However, the assessing officer, and subsequently the appellate authority, rejected this claim.
The crux of the challenge lies in the non-speaking order of the appellate authority. The petitioner’s counsel argued that while the appellate order reproduced the grounds of appeal, facts, and submissions, the conclusions lacked supporting reasons. The appellate authority, in a brief paragraph, affirmed the assessing officer’s findings without independently applying its mind.
In response, the senior standing counsel for the respondents defended the order, claiming it was supported by reasons. However, on examining the order, the court found that the conclusions were in the nature of ipse dixit, lacking discernible supporting reasons.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
