The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA No.527 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

ITA No.527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.9.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ……Appellant Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Gandhi …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Tejinder K.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.500, 509, 527, 528 and 531 of 2010 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, all the appeals arise out of one consolidated order dated 31.7.2009, Annexure A.III passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (in short, “the Tribunal”) relating to the assessment years from 1999-2000 to 2003-04 and the issues involved therein are similar. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.527 of 2010. 2. ITA No.527 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 31.7.2009, Annexure A.III passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.3378/Del./2007 for the assessment year 2000-01 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in not adjudicating all the grounds of appeal raised before it and is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esthuri Aswathiah 1 GURBAX SINGH 2014.11.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITA No.527 of 2010 (O&M) Appellant vs. CIT Mysore, AIR 1968 SC 36 where in it was held that the ITAT is under a duty to decide all questions of fact and law and must consider whether on the material relied upon, case for accepting a plea is made out, it cannot reach any arbitrary decision? 2. Whether,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in holding that similar additions on similar basis were made in the case of Smt.Renu Mukherjee and facts are identical and same were also deleted on the same line by the learned CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case and even though the principle of res judicata is not applicable to the income tax cases and every assessment year is a different assessment year? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in ITA No.527 of 2010 may be noticed. Return declaring an income of ` 4,16,040/- was filed on 25.10.2000. Assessment was completed vide order dated 27.3.2006, Annexure A.I under Sections 143(3)/147 of the Act at an income of ` 21,89,760/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 4.5.2007, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal giving relief of ` 18,73,720/-. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed Cross Objection. . Vide order dated 31.7.2009, Annexure A.III, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and also the Cross Objection. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue contended that the Tribunal has placed reliance on Smt. Renu Mukherjee’s case (ITA No.509 of 2009) and has 2 GURBAX SINGH 2014.11.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITA No.527 of 2010 (O&M) not given any independent findings. On the other hand, besides supporting the orders of CIT(A) and the Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the Assessing Officer had made additions under similar heads in the case of Smt.Renu Mukerjee which had been deleted by CIT(A) by giving detailed findings. 6. A perusal of the findings recorded by the authorities below shows that in all the appeals, there were a total of six issues on which the Assessing officer had made additions with varying amounts in each assessment year. The CIT(A) had deleted the same and the Tribunal had sustained the order of CIT (A). The additions were on following counts in assessment year 2000-01:- (i) Addition under the head wages at ` 1,80,000/-. (ii) Disallowance of Bonus at ` 40,117/-. (iii)Disallowance of manufacturing and trading expenditure ` 4,34,160/-. (iv)Addition on account of Sundry Creditors at ` 9,78,443/-. (v)Disallowance of expenses claimed in P&L account at ` 2,00,000/-. (vi) Addition on account of capital introduced at ` 41,000/-. 7. From the perusal of the record, we find that the Assessing Officer had made similar additions on similar basis in the case of Smt. Renu Mukherjee. The CIT(A) by giving detailed reasons has deleted the same. The Tribunal while upholding the order of CIT(A) had noted as under:- “Since the facts in the present cases are similar, we find no reason to take a contrary view in the present cases because we have gone through the orders of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) also in the case of Smt.Renu Mukherjee and have found that facts are identical. Similar additions on similar basis were made in that 3 GURBAX SINGH 2014.11.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITA No.527 of 2010 (O&M) case also and same were also deleted on the same line by learned CIT(A) in the case of Smt.Renu Mukherjee (supra) and these orders of learned CI(A) in the case of Smt. Renu Mukherjee were upheld by the Tribunal. Learned DR of the revenue also agreeed that the facts are identical and hence respectfully following the precedent, in the present case also, we uphold the orders of the learned CIT(A).” 8. The issues involved in all these appeals are covered by our order of even date rendered in Smt. Renu Mukherjee’s case (supra) against the revenue. Further, in view of the reasons given by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for the appellant revenue was unable to demonstrate that there was any change in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in our order of even date passed in Smt. Renu Mukherjee's case (supra), the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and all the appeals stand dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge September 17, 2014 (Fateh Deep Singh) 'gs' Judge 4 GURBAX SINGH 2014.11.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh