CIT-II V. ARVIND SINGH GREWAL

ITA/429/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, which had dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of an addition to the assessee's income. The assessee, Shri Avinash Singh Grewal, had declared a loss from business and income from agriculture in his tax return for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income, which were partially contested and led to the appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition related to interest received on bank deposits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the present appeal by the revenue. The High Court, referencing a similar case involving the same assessee for a different assessment year, decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744203 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Karanbir Singh, (2008) 303 ITR 231, CIT v. Ghanshyam, (2009) 315 ITR 1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 2006-07; Income Tax; Interest on Bank Deposits; Scrutiny; Short Term Capital Gains; Tribunal; Undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(1); 260-A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.429 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 429 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh -----Appellant Vs. Shri Avinash Singh Grewal ----Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the revenue. None for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B (in short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.642/Chandi/2009, for the assessment year 2006-07. It was ordered to be heard alongwith ITA No.162 of 2009, as identical question of law is involved therein, which has been reproduced in the said appeal. 2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy, as available on record, may be noticed. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of ` (-) 4,00,889/- from business and ` 14,76,000/- from agriculture on 1.8.2006 which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 20.10.2006. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer vide order dated Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.429 of 2010 (O&M) 2 22.12.2008, Annexure A.1 made addition to the returned income of the assessee on account of short term capital gains, interest received on bank deposits and income from undisclosed sources. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal on the issue of interest received on bank deposits only before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] amounting to ` 20,88,282/-. Vide order dated 16.3.2009, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition following its own order on identical facts in assessee's own case and also the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.460/Chd./2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 24.8.2009, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in CIT v.Karanbir Singh, (2008) 303 ITR 231 and upheld the order of the CIT(A), observing that the question whether the assessee was entitled to interest on compensation was still pending for adjudication before the court. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue and perused the record. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 4. Vide our order of even date passed in ITA No.162 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh v. Shri Avinash Singh Grewal) - the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06, after following the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam, (2009) 315 ITR 1, we have set aside the impugned order passed by the Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.429 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, in the present case also, the impugned order dated 24.8.2009, Annexure A.3 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal stands allowed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge September 09, 2013 (Jaspal Singh) 'gs' Judge Singh Gurbax 2013.09.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "