COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARISH CHANDRA SINGHANIA

•^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No. /2008 ApDellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondent Harish Chandra Singhania, Prop. M/s. Madhu Sweets Korba (C.G.)

XI-HG—78 7=T •^l''<ld-4, EStll'M'Ko, fsl<'1U!ll< ,.....;:.'^^..C(B£.£......<I ^raferiN ^pwff 'ii fs<?t <[»I<^K ^7 affipT 3II^?I APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Dlvisjon Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. 9:- Incorrte Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, The Commissioner of under Section 260-A of the Incom^ the order dated 15-2-2008 passefi Bijaspur (in short 'the Tnbunal') mentioned in paragraph 3 ofthe rr^ irief facts of the case ard respondent for the financiai year income Tax OfRcer, Korba, who p^ and assessed total income of th| and agricurturaj income at Rs.1,31 Tax reopened the assessment 2QQ4-05 in exercise of powers the Assessmg Officer whiie counse Commissioner Bilaspur (CG) of Income Tax, ^ersus- Harish Chandra Singhania, Prop. M/s Madhu Sweets, Korba (CG) for the appellant. Tax, Biiaspur has preferred this appeai Tax Act, 1961 (In short 'the Act') against 1 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, |on the substantial questions of law as ^mo ofappeal. that assessment of the income of the 2004-05 was tsken upon scrutiny by the issed assessment order of Annexure-A/1 3 respondenVassessee at Rs.1,05,000/- The Commissioner of Income respondent for the assessment year Section 263 of the Act and he'd that dng assessment failed io forfthe unHer rtiak

;B!— XI-HG—78 7=T "41'41d-4, ®til'y<is,|s|(yii'ylj,< 'h^ w sn^s a*< <. •^ investigation wlth respeci to thej paragraph-2 of its order and acc): the Assessing Officer was cancei de novo. The assessee preferred Commissioner before the Inconl impugned order ailowed the appe^l ofthe Commissioner. We have heard iearned coiji the objections recorded by the Cf Sectlon 263 of the Act and we| Assessing Officer ofAnnexure-A/1 After carefuily examining Assessing Officer has made points that has been raised assessment. Learned Appellat^ order of the Assessing Officer ^ thoroughly discussed in respect o| det^i ;ommissioner in his order under S We are In agreement with setting aside the order of the Com We find no substantial thES appeal, much less any substs appeliant. ^iqfOTh wreffff^S ifa^K ^rsifman^r points raised by the Commissioner in ^rdingSy, the assessment erder made by ed with a direction to the A.O. to frame it an appeal against the order of e Tax Appellate Tribunal, who by the ofthe assessee and set aside the orcer insei for the appeiiant. We have perused ;ommissioner in his order passed under have further perused the order of the |he above two orders, we find that the jet^iled investigation with respect to all the by the Commissioner whiie making Tribunal after carefully examining the ]ss held that the Assessing Officer has ati the items that has been raised by the tection 263 of the Act. |:he reasons assigned by the Tribunai for tnissioner. qu4stion of law involved for adjudicatioo of |ntial question of !aw, as proposed by the

s:.#^ ; ./ / '%,.. l'r"yi, S'..XI-HG—78 ^sr "4l'4ld'4, yflliH'ie, fqcii'yy 0 Si^I'^'femT Barve TOiIWBfelW^I -?1- The appeai being without accordingiy dismissed^ Sd/- '- Dhirendra Mishra Jadge '^FTf^FT^T 'STTO^Tf ^f f^TSl' <r<ti^[< ^siRman^i any substance, deserved to be and is Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge "^s'^; ssa.iS'S'X