PCIT Vs Renu Aggarwal (Supreme Court of India)
The matter concerned an appeal arising from proceedings for Assessment Year 2014-15 involving an addition made by the Assessing Officer on the allegation that certain share transactions represented penny stock transactions. The supplied material records that the assessee had obtained relief against the assessment order before the CIT(A), and the Revenue subsequently challenged the appellate order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench “SMC”, in ITA No.205 of 2020. By order dated 17.01.2022, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Allahabad HC Dismisses Revenue Appeal Against Deletion of Penny Stock Addition
The material records the ITAT’s findings that the CIT(A) had examined the basis of the Assessing Officer’s additions and found no adverse general or specific statement from the stock exchange’s officer or the company whose shares were involved. According to the findings reproduced by the ITAT, the Assessing Officer had relied upon facts concerning unrelated persons whose statements had been recorded, while the assessee’s name was not mentioned by those persons and no material relating to the assessee was found during the investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing. The CIT(A) had relied upon evidence furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and various decisions of the Lucknow and other Benches. The ITAT found no adversity in the CIT(A)’s order and noted that Lucknow Benches had, in various cases, granted relief after relying upon the Delhi High Court decision in Krishna Devi and others.
The Revenue thereafter filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The supplied material states that the basic question concerned deletion of the amount added by the Assessing Officer on the allegation of penny stock. The appellate court recorded that concurrent findings of fact had been made by the first appellate authority and the ITAT. It therefore held that no substantial question of law was involved and that the matter was concluded by findings of fact. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The matter was subsequently placed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recorded that the delay was condoned and that no case for interference was made out in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed. However, the Supreme Court expressly kept the question of law open, and any pending application was also disposed of.
The supplied material does not contain the separate High Court judgment itself; it records the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court challenge and the findings of the lower appellate authorities. Accordingly, no additional High Court reasoning or ruling beyond the material supplied can be stated without introducing unsupported information. The Supreme Court’s final ruling was dismissal of the Special Leave Petition while keeping the question of law open.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned.
No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, the question of law is kept open.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
