COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I AMRITSAR V. HARJOT SINGH

ITA/842/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, which had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding a transaction of sale of jewellery by the respondent, Sh. Harjot Singh, for the assessment year 1998-99. The appellant raised several substantial questions of law concerning the justification of the ITAT's decision in light of the evidence and facts of the case, and the adherence to previous judicial decisions. The High Court, referencing a similar case, decided to remand the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh evaluation, implying that the previous decision may not have adequately addressed the complexities of the case or the legal standards required.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679687 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SUKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1998-99; Income Tax; ITAT; Jewellery Transaction
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.842 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Harjot Singh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.492/(ASR/2008 for the assessment year 1998-99 proposing following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether on the facts and in the 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, Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was justified in following the order of the Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi, which is ex-facie perverse and has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court. iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was I.T.A. No.842 of 2010 justified in following the order of the Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi, when that order contained contradictory findings such that, while Sh. Manoj Aggarwal was found to be a Hawala Operator and was equated with M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kuamr/ M/s Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (being a director therein) however, a finding was given that M/s Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd./ M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar was engaged in genuine business of trade of jewellery” iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT was justified in following its own decision dated 11.09.2008 in the case of ACIT, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. K.L. Sehgal, Jalandhar and others in ITA No.415(ASR) 2006 which followed the decision of M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/ M/s 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, Hon’ble ITAT was justified in accepting the genuineness of the jewellery transactions 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 Hon’ble ITAT grossly erred in law by applying two different yardsticks and standards by requiring the Appellant Revenue Deptt. 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?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 8.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.174 of 2009 CIT v. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF, wherein order of the Tribunal which has 2 I.T.A. No.842 of 2010 been followed in the present case, was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. 3. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the assessee, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has followed the very same order which has been gone into on merits in our order in Sh. Tejinder Singh, HUF. 4. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal in same terms, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 5. Since this order is being passed without notice to the assessee for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that if respondent-assessee is aggrieved by this order, he will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 24, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3 "