Assessment Year 2002-03)The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. Kuldip Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARHDate of Decision: 06.04.2010 1.I.T.A. No. 96 of 2010 (O&M)(Assessment Year 2003-04)The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh …AppellantVersusKuldip Singh…Respondent2.I.T.A. No. 97 of 2010 (O&M)(Assessment Year 1999-2000)The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh…AppellantVersusKuldip Singh…Respondent3.I.T.A. No. 98 of 2010 (O&M)(Assessment Year 1998-99)The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh…AppellantVersusKuldip Singh …Respondent 4.I.T.A. No. 100 of 2010 (O&M)(Assessment Year 2000-01)The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh …AppellantVersus Kuldip Singh …Respondent 5.I.T.A. No. 101 of 2010 (O&M) (Assessment Year 2002-03)The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh …Appellant Versus Kuldip Singh …Respondent 6.I.T.A. No. 102 of 2010 (O&M) (Assessment Year 2001-02) The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh …Appellant Versus Kuldip Singh …Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. M.M. KUMAR, J. These are six appeals filed by the revenue challengingcomposite order dated 15.5.2009, passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’),in ITA Nos. 94 to 99/Chandi/2009, in respect of the assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04. The Tribunal has upheld the opinion expressed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order dated 28.11.2008. TheCIT (A) has accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee-respondentfor various deposits made in the respective assessment years in the accountmaintained with UCO Bank (Ropar). The assessee-respondent hadfurnished explanation that certain amount was withdrawn from the bankand the same was deposited in the bank account and that he had sold Poplartrees and the sale proceeds made available was deposited in the bankaccount, although the aforesaid explanation was not found satisfactory bythe Assessing Officer. 2.The Tribunal has approved the reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) as the persons produced by the assessee-respondent in support of thesale of Poplar trees were examined. He also produced the cash flowstatement which was found sufficient to explain the impugned deposits inthe bank. It has been found as a fact that the assessee-respondent is anagriculturist and had no other source of income. He has been declaring agricultural income in the respective assessment years, which was acceptedby the Assessing Officer as such. The further finding recorded by the CIT(A) and approved by the Tribunal is that the assessee-respondent hadsufficient agricultural land, which has not been disputed by the AssessingOfficer. 3.Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue weare of the view that the aforesaid analysis of the CIT (A), as upheld by theTribunal, would clearly shows that the findings of fact have been recordedand there is no material on record to show concealment of income or thatthe assessee-respondent was not a regular agriculturist. The finding furtheris that the deposits were made by sale of Poplar trees and on that basis ithas been found that the assessee-respondent is not involved in any otheractivities warranting an inference that the income has been concealed. Nosubstantive question of law warranting interference of this Court wouldarise and, therefore, these appeals are dismissed. 4.A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all theconnected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR)JUDGE April 6, 2010Pkapoor (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)JUDGE