THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AMRITSAR V. NARESH KUMAR KOHLI ETC.

ITA/880/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II against an 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. Naresh Kumar Kohli, for the assessment year 2000-01. The appellant raised several substantial questions of law concerning the justification of the ITAT's decision in light of the evidence and previous rulings. The High Court noted that the issues raised were similar to those in a previous case (CIT v. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF), where the questions were answered in favor of the revenue, leading to a remand to the Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court decided to remand the current case to the ITAT for a fresh decision, aligning with the precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719055 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF, Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, ACIT Range-I, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. K.L. Sehgal, Jalandhar and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SUKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2000-01; Income Tax; ITAT; Jewellery Transaction
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.880 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Kohli. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 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 dated 8.6.2010 in I.T.A. No.183(ASR)/2010 for the assessment year 2000-01 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 circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was justified in I.T.A. No.880 of 2010 following the order dated 25.07.2008 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 justified in following the order of Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi when that order contained contradictory findings such that, Sh. 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, finding was given that Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 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, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in following its decision dated 11.09.2008 in the case ACIT Range-I, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. K.L. Sehgal, Jalandhar and others in ITA No.415(ASR)/2006 which followed the decision of M/s Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd./ M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar 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, Amritsar was justified in accepting the genuineness of the jewellery transactions of 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 2 I.T.A. No.880 of 2010 requiring the appellant Revenue Dept. to pass test of cross examination of all principles 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 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? 2. Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court dated 8.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.174 of 2009 CIT v. Sh. Tejinder Singh HUF, wherein all the above questions have been answered in favour of the revenue after hearing the parties and the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal 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 matter is covered and has been remanded to the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal in terms of above order, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing the concerned parties. 5. Since this order is being passed without notice to the assessee, for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that 3 I.T.A. No.880 of 2010 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 March 16, 2011 (JASWANT SINGH) ashwani JUDGE 4 "