Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Dinesh Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. 628 of 2008Date of Decision : December 12, 2008. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad....AppellantVs.Shri Dinesh Jain....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present :Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 20875-C-II of 2008 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in re-filingthe appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : 1.Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, against the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `I', New Delhi in ITA No.4702/DEL/2005 for the assessment year 1997-98, proposing to raisefollowing substantial question of law :- “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law inconfirming the order of Ld. CIT (A) who deletedthe disallowances of losses claimed by the assesseefrom M/s Samta Times & M/s Delta Adhesive andChemicals though the assessee has not filed anyevidence regarding doing any business activities inboth the firms ?” 2.After completing the assessment for the assessment year 1997-98, notice for re-assessment was issued to the assessee and losses weredisallowed, on the ground that assessee was not found to be carrying outbusiness during the assessment year in question. The CIT (A) set aside thesaid order on the ground that assessee had duly explained the position and itwas not taken into account by the Assessing Officer and disallowance wasnot justified. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal. The finding of theCIT (A) is as under :- “4.15From the above, thus, it can be seenthat regarding disallowance of losses,the Assessing Officer has notconsidered the assessee's contentionand even if he has considered, he hasnot stated as to why the assessee'ssubmissions are not correct. Further,this issue was decided by the CIT (A)in the assessment year 1998-99 videNo.03/2001-02 dated 26.12.2002, onthe original assessment in theassessee's favour. (It is relevant tonote that subsequently notice u/s 148was issued for the A.Yr. 1998-99 butthe same A.O. has made not addition, in the reassessment in regard to thelosses in the year. Neither was thisissue mentioned in the reasonsrecorded on 31.3.2004 by the sameA.O.). 4.16 Further, the copy of the balance sheet, profitand loss account of M/s Samta Times,was filed by the assessee in the paperbook. Details of the major expensessuch as newsprint purchase, printingcharges, service charges etc., were alsofiled by the assessee ini the paperbook. Similarly, the balance sheet andthe profit and loss account of M/sDelta Adhesives & Chemical werefurnished by the assessee in the paperbook, alongwith the schedule of fixedassets. From the profit and lossaccount, it is seen that not majorexpense as such was claimed. In anycase, all these documents were sent tothe Assessing Officer at the remandstage, when a report from theAssessing Officer was called for. Nodiscrepancy has been pointed out evenat the remand stage.” 3.The above finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perusedthe record. 5.In view of concurrent finding of the CIT (A) as well as the I. T. A. 628 of 2008 Tribunal, the question raised in appeal relates to appreciation of evidence. 6.No substantial question of law arises. 7.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE December 12, 2008monika ( L. N. MITTAL )JUDGE