Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Mandeep Mushroom Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA No. 636 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 636 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus M/s Mandeep Mushroom Ltd., Gurgaon ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.Delay of 55 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against theorder dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “G”, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) in ITA No. 1160/DEL/2003, for the assessment year 1998-99,claiming the following substantial question of law:- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case,the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is not perverse indeleting the addition of ` 2,39,315/- made by theAssessing Officer in the trading account, when theAssessing Officer had clearly pointed out various discrepancies on the basis of enquiries made and asdiscussed in the assessment order? 3.Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for adjudicationof the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assesseewas earning income from mushroom and strawberry growing and salethereof. The said income was claimed as agricultural income. Theassessee filed its return of income on 27.11.1998 showing loss at` 6,14,961/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) ofthe Act on 31.5.1999. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.3.2001(Annexure A-I) framed the assessment by making an addition of` 2,39,315/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)”]. TheCIT(A) vide order dated 8.1.2003 (Annexure A-II) while partly allowingthe appeal upheld the addition of ` 2,39,315/- made by the Assessing Officer. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before theTribunal who vide order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure A-III) following itsorder for the assessment year 1997-98 in the case of the assesseedeleted the addition of ` 2,39,315/- made by the Assessing Officer.Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue andperused the record. 5.The Tribunal while accepting the appeal of the assesseeheld that the addition is similar to the assessment year 1997-98 inrespect of which ITA No. 267 of 2008 has been dismissed by this Court.The Tribunal has accepted the appeal of the assessee on the samereasoning. Learned counsel for the revenue did not dispute that the ITA No. 636 of 2007 present appeal is governed by the findings recorded in ITA No. 267 of 2008. 6.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE August 25, 2015 gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN)JUDGE