Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 19th March 2020. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 15th February 2019, which had deleted additions made in the block assessment of the respondent-assessee, Avinash B. Jaising, for the block period from 1st April 1989 to 16th November 1999. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order primarily on the ground that in the cases of the assessee's father, Mr. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising, and brother, Mr. Ravi Jaising, similar additions had been deleted by the CIT(A) and those orders were not challenged by the Revenue. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law before the High Court, but the court found that the ITAT's decision was based on the principle of consistency and that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the ITAT's order.
Headnote
A) Income Tax - Block Assessment - Consistency Principle - Section 260A, Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Revenue appealed against ITAT order which upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for the block period 1989-1999, relying on the fact that similar additions in the cases of the assessee's father and brother were deleted and not challenged. The High Court held that the ITAT correctly applied the principle of consistency and dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ITAT was justified in rejecting the Revenue's appeal on the ground of consistency, given that similar additions were deleted in the cases of the assessee's father and brother and those orders were not challenged by the Revenue.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law arises. ITAT order upheld.
Law Points
- Consistency principle
- Block assessment
- Section 260A Income Tax Act
- 1961
- Substantial question of law
