2017 (2) TMI 1549 - HC - Income Tax

Court Dismisses Income Tax Appeals, Upholds SC Precedent on Book Rejection Before DVO Referral u/s 142A.

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Lucknow Versus Smt. Asha Chaurasia, Shri Udai Chand Chaurasia, Shri Raj Kumar Chaurasia

The HC dismissed all appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the Revenue. The central issue was whether books of account should be ... Validity of additions based on valuation report - Non rejection of books of account before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A - HELD THAT:- Question raised in these appeals Shri Udai Chand Chaurasia Shri Ram Road Lucknow [2017 (1) TMI 1832 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as relying on Sargam Cinema [2009 (10) TMI 569 - SC ORDER] wherein held matter could not refer to the Departmental Valuation Officer without the books of account being rejected. Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 arising from a judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'B', Lucknow, regarding the rejection of books of account before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A.Analysis:The appeals in question arose from a judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'B', Lucknow, relating to various Assessment Years. The substantial question of law formulated in these appeals revolved around the issue of whether the books of account should be rejected before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A. The parties' counsels acknowledged that the question raised was covered by a prior judgment of the High Court. The judgment in question referred to a similar matter where the Court had decided against the Revenue following the Supreme Court's decision in Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue's counsel mentioned a judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that presented a divergent view, but the High Court found that the facts in that case were not clear and did not aid the Assessee. The Court highlighted that the law laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment was applicable and had been answered against the Revenue in a previous case. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the appeals, answering the question against the Revenue based on the precedent set by a prior judgment. The Court's decision was in line with the reasoning and outcome of the previous judgment, leading to the dismissal of all the appeals.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the issues raised in the appeals and the Court's application of precedent and legal principles to arrive at a decision.