Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-Ii v. Ms.uma Gupta

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ITA No. 168 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.08.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II...... Appellant Versus Ms.Uma Gupta...... Respondent Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar GoelHon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. for the appellant. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of Income taxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B (hereinafter referred to as 'theTribunal') in ITA No. 765/CHANDI/2006 dated 31.07.2007, proposing thefollowing substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case andin law, the order of the ITAT is perverse as it has failed toappreciate that the Assessing Officer has made the additionon the basis of evidence collected and declaration of suchincome by the father-in-law of the assessee in his own handswould not preclude the Assessing Officer from making theassessment in the hands of the 'right person' i.e. the assessee,regarding which sufficient evidentiary material is available?in law, the order of the ITAT is perverse as it has failed toappreciate that the Assessing Officer has made the additionon the basis of evidence collected and declaration of suchincome by the father-in-law of the assessee in his own handswould not preclude the Assessing Officer from making theassessment in the hands of the 'right person' i.e. the assessee,regarding which sufficient evidentiary material is available? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessinglaw, the ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer has accepted the fixed deposits as belonging to ShriTarsem Gupta simply on the premise that the AssessingOfficer had accepted the income from the concerned FDRsshown by Sh.Tarsem Gupta in his return. The ITAT failed toappreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer could not havereduced the income of Sh. Tarsem Gupta.” On the basis of an information received, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wasissued to the assessee and her family members on the ground that the familyowns many FDRs made in cash which had been claimed by the father-in-law of the assessee as having been made from his resources, albeit in thename of the assessee. Having not found the reply satisfactory, notice underSection 148 of the Act was issued and subsequently the Assessing Officeradded the said income in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, the AppellateAuthority reversed the finding which was carried by the revenue by way ofsecond appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the same holding thatthe Assessing Officer while framing the assessment of the father-in-law ofthe assessee, accepted that the said income was his and had considered thesame in his hands and, therefore, there was no justification for consideringthe same in the hands of the assessee. Learned counsel for the revenue, while assailing the judgmentsof the two Appellate Authorities, has relied upon the judgement of theHon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah reported as 218 ITR 239. We are of the view that the CIT as well as the Tribunal havingrecorded a finding of fact that the FDR in question belonged to father-in- ITA No. 168 of 2008 law of the assessee and not to the assessee, question of law sought to beraised does not arise. The judgment relied upon is distinguishable. Therein questionwas whether the Department had option not to assess the AOP whenindividuals had already been assessed. It was held that AOP was liable tobe assessed under Section 183 of the Act, irrespective of the fact thatindividual members had already been assessed. We are not concerned with such a situation here. No substantial question of law arises. We are of the view that the CIT as well as the Tribunal havingrecorded a finding of fact that the FDR in question belonged to father-in- ITA No. 168 of 2008 law of the assessee and not to the assessee, question of law sought to beraised does not arise. The judgment relied upon is distinguishable. Therein questionwas whether the Department had option not to assess the AOP whenindividuals had already been assessed. It was held that AOP was liable tobe assessed under Section 183 of the Act, irrespective of the fact thatindividual members had already been assessed. We are not concerned with such a situation here. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI)JUDGE August 29, 2008sunita (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE