Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Appe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT.CHANDIGARH ITA No.527 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: 17.9.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Gandhi .....- Appe .... Responde CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTAHON’BLE MR. JUSTICEK FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Tejinder K.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. ].This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.500, 509, 527, 528 and 531of 2010 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, all the appeals ariseout of one consolidated order dated 31.7.2009, Annexure A.III passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (in short, “theTribunal’) relating to the assessment years from 1999-2000 to 2003-04 and theissues involved therein are similar. However, the facts are being extracted fromITA No.527 of 2010. DoITA No.527 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against theorder dated 31.7.2009, Annexure A.III passed by the Iribunal in ITANo.3378/Del./2007 for the assessment year 2000-01 claiming followingsubstantial questions of law:- **1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thlearned [TAT was right in law in not adjudicating all the groundsof appeal raised before it and is contrary to the decision ofHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esthur1 Aswathiah Appellant vs. CIT Mysore, AIR 1968 SC 36 where in it was heldthat the [TAT 1s under a duty to decide all questions of fact andlaw and must consider whether on the material relied upon, casefor accepting a plea 1s made out, it cannot reach any arbitrarydecision? 2. Whether,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thelearned ITAT was right in law in holding that similar additions onsimilar basis were made 1n the case of Smt.Renu Mukherjee andfacts are identical and same were also deleted on the same line bythe learned CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case andeven though the principle of res judicata 1s not applicable to theimcome tax cases and every assessment year 1s a differentassessment year? 3A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involvedas narrated in ITA No.527 of 2010 may be noticed. Return declaring an incomeotzy4,16,040/- was filed on 25.10.2000. Assessment was completed vide orderdated 27.3.2006, Annexure A.I under Sections 143(3)/147 of the Act at anncome of=a21,89,760/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated4.5.2007, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal giving relief ofz18,73,720/-. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before theTribunal and the assessee filed Cross Objection. . Vide order dated 31.7.2009,Annexure A.III, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and also the CrossObjection. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue. AWe have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. 4_|Learned counsel for the revenue contended that the Tribunal hasplaced reliance on.Smt. Renu Mukherjee’scase (ITA No.509 of 2009) and has not given any independent findings. On the other hand, besides supporting theorders of CIT(A) and the Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee argued thatthe Assessing Officer had made additions under similar heads in the case ofSmt.Renu Mukerjee which had been deleted by CII(A) by giving detailedfindings. 6.A perusal of the findings recorded by the authorities below showsthat in all the appeals, there were a total of six issues on which the Assessingofficer had made additions with varying amounts 1n each assessment year. TheCII(A) had deleted the same and the Iribunal had sustained the order of CIT(A). The additions were on following counts 1n assessment year 2000-01:-| (1) Addition under the head wages atLV1,80,000/-, (11) Disallowance of Bonus at“440,117/- not given any independent findings. On the other hand, besides supporting theorders of CIT(A) and the Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee argued thatthe Assessing Officer had made additions under similar heads in the case ofSmt.Renu Mukerjee which had been deleted by CII(A) by giving detailedfindings. 6.A perusal of the findings recorded by the authorities below showsthat in all the appeals, there were a total of six issues on which the Assessingofficer had made additions with varying amounts 1n each assessment year. TheCII(A) had deleted the same and the Iribunal had sustained the order of CIT(A). The additions were on following counts 1n assessment year 2000-01:-| (1) Addition under the head wages atLV1,80,000/-, (11) Disallowance of Bonus at“440,117/- (111)Disallowance of manufacturing and trading expenditure24,34,160/-.24,34,160/-. (iv)Addition on account of Sundry Creditors at-9,78,443/-. (v)Disallowance of expenses claimed in P&L account atLV2,00,000/-.LV2,00,000/-. (v1) Addition on account of capital introduced at=a41 ,000/- To|From the perusal of the record, we find that the Assessing Officerhad made similar additions on similar basis in the case of Smt RenuMukherjee. The CIT(A) by giving detailed reasons has deleted the same. TheTribunal while upholding the order of CII(A) had noted as under:- “Since the facts in the present cases are similar, we find no reasonto take a contrary view in the present cases because we have gonethrough the orders of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A)also in the case of Smt.Renu Mukherjee and have found that factsare identical. Similar additions on similar basis were made in that case also and same were also deleted on the same line by learnedCII(A) in the case of Smt.Renu Mukherjee (supra) and theseorders of learned CI(A) in the case of Smt. Renu Mukherjee wereupheld by the Iribunal. Learned DR of the revenue also agreeedthat the facts are identical and hence respectfully following theprecedent, in the present case also, we uphold the orders of thelearned CIT(A).” 8.The issues involved 1n all these appeals are covered by our orderoft even date rendered iSmt. Renu Mukherjee*s case (Supra) against therevenue. Further, in view of the reasons given by the CIT(A) and upheld by theTribunal for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which havenot been shown to be erroneous or perverse 1n any manner, we do not find anyground to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for the appellant revenuewas unable to demonstrate that there was any change in the facts andcircumstances of the present appeals. Accordingly, for the reasons mentionedin our order of even date passed 1n Smt Renu Mukherjee'scase (Supra), thesubstantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and all theappeals stand dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge September 17, 2014 (Fateh Deep Singh)Judge