CIT, BATHINDA vs. M/S N.W.W. BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, ABOHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/357/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084456200922 July 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. Regarding the first issue, the Court found a concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal that the department had accepted the surrendered income. The Court stated that if this finding was against the record, the Revenue's remedy was rectification, not an appeal under Section 260A. The Court did not explicitly address the second question regarding unrecorded sales, but by dismissing the appeal on the basis of concurrent findings of fact, it implicitly upheld the ITAT's decision on that aspect as well. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT's order, dated 27.11.2008, pertained to ITA No. 109(ASR)/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) over and above an income surrendered by the assessee, M/s N.W.W., Abohar. A survey under Section 133A was conducted on 4.12.2003, leading to the assessee's surrender of income with a condition of no penalty or prosecution. Both the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had accepted the surrendered income and deleted the AO's addition.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was to decide two substantial questions of law. The first question was: (i) Whether the department is obligated to accept any surrendered income not based on documents found during a survey under Section 133A. The Revenue argued that the CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal's finding was against the record, asserting there was no acceptance of the surrender and the AO was justified in making additions beyond the surrendered income. The second question was: (ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in not giving a finding on unrecorded sales, given that the CIT(Appeals) order was not speaking on this issue, particularly regarding how the returned income of Rs. 2,18,162/- was sufficient to cover the profit and initial investment of unrecorded sales amounting to Rs. 38,36,534/-. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee on these issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 22.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ..........Appellant Versus M/s N.W.W., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abohar ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mrs. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 27.11.2008 passed in ITA No. 109(ASR)/2008 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bhatinda Vs. M/s N.W.W., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abhor), for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the department is under obligation to accept any amount of surrender income which is not based on the documents found in the survey u/s 133A.” (ii)“On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Ld. ITAT is justified in not giving any finding on the issue of unrecorded sales when the CIT (Appeals)

(2) order is not a speaking order on this issue, particularly as how returned income of Rs. 2,18,162/- is sufficient to cover profit and initial investment of the unrecorded sales of Rs.38,36,534/-”.

2.

A survey was conducted under Section133A of the Act on 4.12.2003 at the premises of the assessee. In pursuance thereof, the assessee made a surrender with condition that their will be no penalty or prosecution. It has been found by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal that the surrender was accepted. However, the Assessing Officer added taxable income over and above the surrendered amount, which was deleted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal is against the record and there was no acceptance of the surrender and the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition, over and above the surrendered income.

5.

We are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the department had accepted the surrendered income and if the finding is against the record, the remedy of the appellant is to apply for rectification and not by way of this appeal.

6.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 22, 2009

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No (3)

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →