Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 266778d5-1d19-43c6-a4d2-cf13f3598d30
Body View case body.
Case Number D.B. IT APPEAL No. 18 OF 2005
Decision Date Mar 24, 2005
Hearing Date
Decision The appeal by the Revenue against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, dated July 23, 2004, was dismissed. The Assessing Officer had made additions as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1995-96 based on a difference in cost declared by the assessee and the cost determined by the DVO on CPWD rates. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision, stating that PWD rates were more appropriate. The court ruled that the determination of construction cost is a question of fact, not law, and thus, no substantial question of law arose. The Assessing Officer's joint assessment order for three years was deemed inappropriate, as each year should be assessed separately.
Summary This case revolves around the assessment of income tax under the Income Tax Act of 1961, specifically focusing on Section 143 concerning undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision that favored the respondent by allowing a deduction based on PWD rates rather than CPWD rates for construction cost assessment. The court clarified that the determination of construction costs is factual and does not present a substantial question of law. The ruling emphasized the necessity for independent assessments for each assessment year rather than a joint order. Keywords include 'Income Tax Act', 'undisclosed sources', 'assessment year', 'construction cost', and 'Tribunal decision'.
Court Rajasthan High Court
Entities Involved Not available
Judges RAJESH BALIA, DINESH MAHESHWARI
Lawyers K.K. Bissa
Petitioners Commissioner of Income Tax
Respondents Smt. Prem KuMar courti Murdiya
Citations 2008 SLD 942 = (2008) 296 ITR 508
Other Citations CIT v. Dinesh Talwar [2004] 265 ITR 344
Laws Involved Income Tax Act, 1961
Sections 143