COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM versus P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM 
A 
v. 
P.V. KAL YANASUNDARAM 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
B 
Income Tax Act, 1961-s. 260A-Assessee purchasing land for Rs 4.10 
lakhs-Notes on loose sheets recovered in the course of raid from assessee-
Department on basis of statement of seller though contrary that sale was for C 
a higher price and making assessment on basis thereof-CIT and Tribunal 
holding in favour of assessee-Appeal under s. 260A raising substantial 
questions of law pertaining to actual sale price of the property, implications 
of statements and counter statem.ents made by seller, reliance on notes on 
loose sheets recovered-Dismissed by High Court-Interference with-Held: D 
Order of High Court suffers from no infirmity-Questions so raised were all 
questions of fact and not substantial question of law. 
Judgment/Order-Writing of-Quoting from an order of some authority 
particularly a specialized one-Propriety of-Held: Cannot per-se be faulted 
as this procedure can often help in making for brevity and precision, but any E 
'borrowed words' used in a judgment must be acknowledged as a courtesy 
to the true author. 
Respondent-assessee purchased certain land. The sale deed showed Rs 
4.10 lakhs as sale price. During search of certain premises, the Department 
found certain notes on loose sheets allegedly in the hands of the respondent F 
and the respondent could not give any explanation for the same. The 
Department recorded the statement of the seller that he had received Rs 34.85 
lakhs as sale consideration. Thereafter, seller gave a contradictory statement 
and then again reverted to the earlier statement. The Assessing Officer took 
Rs 34.85 lakhs as sale consideration for assessment and made an addition of G 
Rs 3,75,005 as undisclosed income. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax 
and the Tribunal held in favour of assessee. Appellant-Revenue filed appeal 
under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 raising substantial questions 
of law that whether the revenue was justified in fixing higher sale 
consideration amount than what was declared; that when the assessee did not 
949 
H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A . give any explanation to the notings found and revenue was able to corroborate 
the same with the statement of seller for determination of actual sale value, 
whether the lower authority was justified in interfering; and when consistent 
sworn were taken into consideration along with evidence found at the time of 
search, would all be liable to be rejected on basis of one statement in between 
B the contradicting the earlier ones. High Court dismissed the appeal on the 
basis that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: It is true that the Division Bench of the High Court has borrowed 
extensively from the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner and passed 
them off as if they were themselves the author's. Quoting from an order of 
some authority particularly a specialized one cannot per-se be faulted as this 
procedure can often help in making for brevity and precision, but any 
'borrowed words' used in a judgment must be acknowledged as such in any 
D appropriate manner as a courtesy to the true author(s). Even then, the 
questions raised can in no way be called substantial questions oflaw. The fact 
as to the actual sale price of the property, the implication of the contradictory 
statements made by vendor or whether reliance could be placed on the loose 
sheets recovered in the course of the raid are al! questions of fact Therefore, 
E there is no infirmity in the order of the High Court (Para 6) (953-B, C, D, E) 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4262 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature atMadras in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 138 of2006. 
G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General,.Hrishikesh Baruah and B.V. Balaram 
Das for the Appellant. 
K. Swami, Y ousa Lachenpa and Prabha Swami for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal. by way of special leave is directed against the judgment 
of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 08th February 2006 
H whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-
tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") against the order of the Income-
C.l.T.v.P.V.K

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.