CIT-II V. HARMOHAN KAUR

ITA/585/2009

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar as the appellant and Smt. Harmohan Kaur as the respondent, concerning the sale of jewelry and its tax implications for the assessment year 1998-99. The primary legal questions revolved around the justification of the ITAT's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the sale of jewelry, the adherence to precedents, and the standards of evidence required to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana decided to remand the case to the ITAT for a fresh evaluation, referencing a similar case (ITA No.174 of 2009) where the matter was also remanded.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744206 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.174 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar Vs. Sh. Tejinder Singh, HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: G C SRIVASTAVA; SUKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Genuineness of transaction; Hawala operator; Income Tax; ITAT; Jewellery Transaction
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.2.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar ...Appellant Versus Smt. Harmohan Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.C.Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This order will dispose of 38 appeals being ITA Nos.355, 378, 429 to 431, 452, 453, 462, 465, 466, 490, 516 to 519, 542, 585, 598, 600, 601, 675, 680, 697, 698, 718 of 2009, 103 to 109, 111, 442, 731, 729, 732 and 819 of 2010 as it has been stated by the learned counsel for the revenue that all the appeals involve common questions. It has been further stated that the issues raised in these appeals are covered by order of this Court passed today in ITA No.174 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar Vs. Sh. Tejinder Singh, HUF). 2. ITA No.585 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 24.3.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2009 -2- **** Bench, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.91(Asr)/2009 for the assessment year 1998-99 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and 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, the order of Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was justified in following the order of the Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi, which is ex-facie and has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was justified in following the order of the Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi, when that order contained contradictory findings such that, while Shri Manoj Aggarwal was found to be Hawala operator and was equated with M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (being a director therein) however, findings was given M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/Bemco Jewellers Private Limited was engaged in genuine business of trade of jewellery? Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2009 -3- **** iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT was justified in following the decisions of Sh. K.L.Sehgal, Jalandhar which followed the decision of M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/Bemco Jewellers without appreciating the facts and evidence on record in the present case? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar was justified in accepting the genuineness of the jewellery transaction of the respondent on probabilities, when the respondent's conduct conflicted with the test of 'Normal human conduct' principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801? vi) Whether the ld. ITAT grossly erred in law by applying two different yardsticks and standards by requiring the appellant Revenue Dept. to pass test of cross examination of all witnesses and at the same time being satisfied by all the respondent's averments at face value, thus forcing the revenue to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt? 3. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the concerned assesses, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has followed the very same order Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2009 -4- **** which has been gone into on merits in our order passed today in ITA No.174 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar Vs. Sh. Tejinder Singh, HUF) whereby we have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision after due opportunity to the parties to be heard on merits. Accordingly, while disposing of these appeals in same terms, we remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 4. Since this order is being passed without notice to the assesses for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that if respondent-assesses are aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. 5. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 6. A copy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 08, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge "