VIJAY PARKASH MAHESHWARI V. COMMISSIONER OF I TAX LDH.

ITA/140/2001

AI Insights

The case involves three Income Tax Appeals (Nos. 140, 141, and 142 of 2001) filed by Vijay Parkash Maheshwari, Ravinder Kumar Maheshwari, and Subhash Chander Maheshwari against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana. The appeals challenge the order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. The main legal issues pertained to the timeliness of the Block Assessment order, the adequacy of opportunity given to the assessee to be heard, and the justification for restoring the addition of Rs.2007300 back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, after considering the submissions and the context of the case, decided to dispose of the appeals based on the findings and decisions of the Tribunal and the subsequent actions taken by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727204 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN; DIVYA SURI; SACHIN BHARDWAJ
• Keywords: Block assessment; Natural Justice; Remand; Time bar; Addition Verification

Judgement Text

"Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 Date of Decision: 17.11.2014 Vijay Parkash Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Ludhiana and another ..Respondents Income Tax Appeal No.141 of 2001 Ravinder Kumar Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Ludhiana and another .Respondents and Income Tax Appeal No.142 of 2001 Subhash Chander Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Ludhiana and another ..Respondents KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.22 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Income Tax Appeal Nos.140,141 and 142 of 2001 as they require an answer to the same substantial questions of law and lay challenge of the same order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is before us challenging order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on the following substantial questions of law:- “ (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding the Block Assessment order as not barred by the time, though having been framed beyond the period available as per law? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the issues back to the Assessing Officer rather than quashing the assessment order even after finding that there was definite lack of opportunity KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.22 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 3 given to assessee of being heard, in utter breach of the sacred principles of equity and natural justice? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the addition of Rs.2007300/- back to the Assessing Officer for verification, taking note of the legal objection of the assessee that it was a disclosed transaction, in contradiction of its own findings that on merits the impugned addition was not warranted? Admittedly, question nos. 1 and 2 have been answered against the assessee in ITA No.101 of 2001 and are, accordingly, answered against the assessee in terms of order of even date passed in ITA No.101 of 2001. Counsel for the appellant submits, with respect to the 3rd question of law, that as the Tribunal has recorded a prime facie opinion that addition of Rs.20,07,300/- is not warranted, it should not have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessment order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the revenue submits that question has been rendered academic, as after the matter was remanded to the assessing Officer, a fresh assessment order has been framed making an addition of Rs.20,07,300/- which is subject matter of a bunch of other appeals which are pending adjudication before this Court, namely, ITA Nos. 99, 128, 204, KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.22 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 4 215, 218 of 2013. We have heard counsel for the parties. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal in remanding the matter cannot be faulted. Even otherwise, as after remand, the matter is once again before us, in appeals filed by the revenue, namely, ITA Nos.194 to 197, 205,206, 214 and 216 of 2001, we desist from recording any further opinion on merits, particularly in the background of the fact that the Tribunal had deleted this addition. The questions of law are, accordingly, answered in the aforesaid terms and the appeals disposed of accordingly. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE ( B.S.WALIA ) 17.11.2014 JUDGE VK KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.22 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh "