Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludniana v. Sn. Viyay Parkasn Manesnwari

a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAl CHANDIGARH ITA No. 215 of 2001.Date of Decision : 18.17.7014. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludniana ..Appellant Versus Sn. Viyay Parkasn Manesnwari ...Respondent CORAM:FON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. WALIA Present:Mr. Rajesn Katocn, Aavocate for tne appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate withMr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.;;; Rajive Bhalla, |. By way of this order, we snall decide ITA No. 215 of 2001(Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Sn. Vijay ParkasnManesnwearl, ITA No. 218 of 2001 (Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ludniana Vs. Ravinder Kumar Manesnwarli and ITA No. 200 of2001 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludniana Vs. SubnasnChander Maheshwari), filed by the revenue challenging order dated04.12.2000 restoring the assessment to file of the Assessing Officer onthe following substantial questions of law :- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the giftsMade by Sh. Surinder Kumar Maheshwari to theAssessee and his two brothers almost in eguivalentamounts to each to be genuine without adjudicatinguoon the capacity of the donor?case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the giftsMade by Sh. Surinder Kumar Maheshwari to theAssessee and his two brothers almost in eguivalentamounts to each to be genuine without adjudicatinguoon the capacity of the donor? II)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ITA No. 215 of ZOOL case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the A.O.to reconsider the genuineness of the gifts when theadaition made by treating the gift as not genuine IsJustified in view of the judgment of the Hon'bleJurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the caseOf Lal Chand Kalra Vs. ClT 22 CTR 135 (P&H). I)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in directing that ifany addition Is sustained in the hands of the Assessee,the same shou/d be off-set with the surrender in thefirm in which the Assessee /s a partner to the extent ofhis share. Counsel for the revenue submits that as the AssessingOfficer had recorded a legally valid opinion as to the nature of foreigngifts, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the‘Tribunal') had no jurisdiction while remitting the matter, to record thatIn case the aaaition Is confirmed, it would be set off against the incomesurrendered by tne firm. The Tribunal snouild nave left this matter openfor the Assessing Officer to determine, Counsel for the assessee submits tnat as appeals filed by theassessee pertaining to the same order nave been dismissed pyconfirming tne order of remand, no exception can be made to the orderpassed by the Tribunal. The directions issued by the Tribunal may beaffirmed whether pertaining to the genuineness of the gifts or themanner in which surrendered income may be treated. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused theimpugned order and would necessarily have to make reference tocertain relevant facts that have occurred during pendency of theseappeals. After remand by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer framed afresn assessment. The assessment was once again set-aside by theTriounal. Tne Assessing Officer proceeded to frame a third assessmentwhicn Is subject matter of ITA Nos. 99, 128 and 204 of 2013, which shall ITA No. 215 of ZOOL be decided by a separate order. The order passed by the Tribunal having been implementedby the Assessing Officer and having once again been set-aside, thecontroversy involved in tne present petition has been renderedInfructuous/academic, particularly in the light of tne fact that we haveaffirmed the order of remand dated 04.12.2000 passed In appeals filedby the assessee. ITA No. 215 of ZOOL be decided by a separate order. The order passed by the Tribunal having been implementedby the Assessing Officer and having once again been set-aside, thecontroversy involved in tne present petition has been renderedInfructuous/academic, particularly in the light of tne fact that we haveaffirmed the order of remand dated 04.12.2000 passed In appeals filedby the assessee. We, therefore, answer tne first and second question againsttne revenue by holding that there Is no error of law in the exercise ofjurisdiction by the Tribunal. With respect to the third question, theAssessing Officer has already recorded a finding based upon directionsissued by the Tribunal in its order dated 04.12.2000 which is subjectmatter of ITA Nos. 99, 128 and 204 of 2013 and shall be answered whiledeciding these appeals. The first and the second questions having beenanswered against the revenue, we leave the third question open to beanswered in the aforesaid appeals. Ine appeals are disposed ofaccordingly. (RAJIVE BHALLA)JUDGE| December 18, 2014.kanchea (B.S. WALIA)JUDGE.