COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I AMRITSAR vs. HARJOT SINGH

ITA/842/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093818201024 February 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar. The ITAT's order pertained to the assessment year 1998-99 and involved the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning the sale of jewellery. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to delete the addition, arguing that the ITAT had not properly appreciated the evidence and facts of the case. The Revenue also contended that the ITAT had erred by following a Special Bench order of the ITAT, New Delhi, which they claimed was perverse and contained contradictory findings. Furthermore, the Revenue argued that the ITAT had followed its own previous decision, which was based on the same challenged order, without appreciating the facts of the present case. The Revenue also raised concerns about the ITAT accepting the genuineness of transactions on probabilities and applying different standards to the Revenue and the assessee.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Revenue stated the matter was covered in its favour by a previous judgment of the High Court dated 8.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.174 of 2009 (CIT Vs. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF). In that prior judgment, an order of the Tribunal, which had been followed in the present case, was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The High Court found it unnecessary to issue notice to the assessee because the Tribunal had followed the same order that was dealt with on merits in the Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF case. Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the present appeal in the same terms as the previous one. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law, after hearing both parties. The Court clarified that if the respondent-assessee was aggrieved by this order passed without notice, they would be at liberty to move the Court for appropriate orders. No specific finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of the sale of jewellery without appreciating the evidence and facts of the case? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in following the order of the Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi, which was allegedly perverse and challenged before the High Court? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in following the Special Bench order when it contained contradictory findings regarding a Hawala operator and a jewellery trading company? 4. Whether the ITAT was justified in following its own previous decision in the case of ACIT, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. K.L. Sehgal, which followed the order concerning M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/M/s Bemco Jewellers, without appreciating the facts and evidence in the present case? 5. Whether the ITAT was justified in accepting the genuineness of jewellery transactions on probabilities when the assessee's conduct conflicted with the principle of 'Normal human conduct' as laid down in Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal? 6. Whether the ITAT erred in law by applying different yardsticks, requiring the Revenue to pass the test of cross-examination of all witnesses while being satisfied with the assessee's averments at face value, thus forcing the Revenue to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The matter is covered in favour of the Revenue by this Court's judgment dated 8.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.174 of 2009 CIT Vs. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF, wherein an order of the Tribunal, which was followed in the present case, was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.842 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Harjot Singh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.492/(ASR/2008 for the assessment year 1998-99 proposing following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench was justified in law and on the facts in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of transaction of sale of jewellery without appreciating the evidence on record and the facts of the case? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was justified in following the order of the Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi, which is ex-facie perverse and has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court. iii. Whe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →