Arun Ammat, Chandigarh v. Commission Of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA No. 397 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 397 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.9.2010 Arun Ammat, Chandigarh Versus ....Appellant Commission of Income Tax, Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order will dispose of a bunch of nine appeals, i.e. ITANos. 397 to 400, 404 and 406 to 409 of 2010 as the identical questionsof law and facts are involved. 2.ITA No. 397 of 2010 has been filed by the assessee underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated29.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench “A”, Chandigarh in ITA No. 334/CHANDI/2009, proposing toraise following substantial questions of law:- “i)Whether on the true and correct interpretation of theprovisions of sections 249, 250 of the Act thedecision of CIT (A) on merits can be interpreted as aprovisions of sections 249, 250 of the Act thedecision of CIT (A) on merits can be interpreted as a “satisfaction for an admission of an appeal” filedbeyond the period prescribed? ii) Whether Tribunal is right in law by not assigning anyreasoning to the pleadings raised in pursuance to thegrounds of appeal? iii) Whether the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153Ais valid and legal when the required information toform 'reason to believe' u/s 132 of the Act is lacking?Whether on the true and correct interpretations of theprovisions of section 254 of the Act Tribunal has thepowers for interpreting adversely or order u/s 250 ofthe Act? iv) v)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseTribunal order is sustainable since makingcontradictory decisions in the hands of differentpersons qua the same material for delay henceperverse in nature? vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseassessment order is sustainable since additions onaccount of house hold expenses, bank deposits arebased upon surmises and conjecture since very wellexplainable?” 3.Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly states that thesimilar matter has been decided by this Court against the assessee byorder dated 7.9.2010 passed in ITA No. 270 of 2010 (Abzony SafetyGlass Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh). ITA No. 397 of 2010 4.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 5.A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 15, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE