COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DINESH JAIN

I. T. A. 628 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. 628 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 12, 2008.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad .... Appellant Vs.

Shri Dinesh Jain .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 20875-C-II of 2008 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, against the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `I', New Delhi in ITA No. 4702/DEL/2005 for the assessment year 1997-98, proposing to raise following substantial question of law :- “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of

I. T. A. 628 of 2008 2 the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of Ld. CIT (A) who deleted the disallowances of losses claimed by the assessee from M/s Samta Times & M/s Delta Adhesive and Chemicals though the assessee has not filed any evidence regarding doing any business activities in both the firms ?” 2. After completing the assessment for the assessment year 1997- 98, notice for re-assessment was issued to the assessee and losses were disallowed, on the ground that assessee was not found to be carrying out business during the assessment year in question. The CIT (A) set aside the said order on the ground that assessee had duly explained the position and it was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer and disallowance was not justified. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal. The finding of the CIT (A) is as under :- “4.15 From the above, thus, it can be seen that regarding disallowance of losses, the Assessing Officer has not considered the assessee's contention and even if he has considered, he has not stated as to why the assessee's submissions are not correct. Further, this issue was decided by the CIT (A) in the assessment year 1998-99 vide No.03/2001-02 dated 26.12.2002, on the original assessment in the assessee's favour. (It is relevant to note that subsequently notice u/s 148 was issued for the A.Yr. 1998-99 but the same A.O. has made not addition,

I. T. A. 628 of 2008 3 in the reassessment in regard to the losses in the year. Neither was this issue mentioned in the reasons recorded on 31.3.2004 by the same A.O.). 4.16 Further, the copy of the balance sheet, profit and loss account of M/s Samta Times, was filed by the assessee in the paper book. Details of the major expenses such as newsprint purchase, printing charges, service charges etc., were also filed by the assessee ini the paper book. Similarly, the balance sheet and the profit and loss account of M/s Delta Adhesives & Chemical were furnished by the assessee in the paper book, alongwith the schedule of fixed assets. From the profit and loss account, it is seen that not major expense as such was claimed. In any case, all these documents were sent to the Assessing Officer at the remand stage, when a report from the Assessing Officer was called for. No discrepancy has been pointed out even at the remand stage.” 3. The above finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the record. 5. In view of concurrent finding of the CIT (A) as well as the

I. T. A. 628 of 2008 4 Tribunal, the question raised in appeal relates to appreciation of evidence. 6. No substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 12, 2008

( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE