Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ii, Amritsar v. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J

Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2009-1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.585of 2009Date of decision: 8.2.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar ...Appellant Versus Smt. Harmohan Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.C.Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral). 1.This order will dispose of 38 appeals being ITA Nos.355,378, 429 to 431, 452, 453, 462, 465, 466, 490, 516 to 519, 542, 585,598, 600, 601, 675, 680, 697, 698, 718 of 2009, 103 to 109, 111,442, 731, 729, 732 and 819 of 2010 as it has been stated by thelearned counsel for the revenue that all the appeals involve commonquestions. It has been further stated that the issues raised in theseappeals are covered by order of this Court passed today in ITANo.174 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar Vs.Sh. Tejinder Singh, HUF). 2.ITA No.585 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orderdated 24.3.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar **** Bench, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.91(Asr)/2009 for the assessment year1998-99 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, Hon'ble ITAT Bench was justified in law andon the facts in deleting the addition made by theA.O. on account of transaction of sale of jewellerywithout appreciating the evidence on record and thefacts of the case? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Amritsarwas justified in following the order of the SpecialBench of ITAT, New Delhi, which is ex-facie andhas been challenged before the Hon'ble HighCourt? iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Amritsarwas justified in following the order of the SpecialBench of ITAT, New Delhi, when that ordercontained contradictory findings such that, whileShri Manoj Aggarwal was found to be Hawalaoperator and was equated with M/s Bishan ChandMukesh Kumar/Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (being adirector therein) however, findings was given M/sBishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/Bemco JewellersPrivate Limited was engaged in genuine business oftrade of jewellery? iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT was justified infollowing the decisions of Sh. K.L.Sehgal, Jalandharwhich followed the decision of M/s Bishan ChandMukesh Kumar/Bemco Jewellers withoutappreciating the facts and evidence on record in thepresent case? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar wasjustified in accepting the genuineness of thejewellery transaction of the respondent onprobabilities, when the respondent's conductconflicted with the test of 'Normal human conduct'principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 andSumati Dayal 214 ITR 801? vi)Whether the ld. ITAT grossly erred in law byapplying two different yardsticks and standards byrequiring the appellant Revenue Dept. to pass testof cross examination of all witnesses and at thesame time being satisfied by all the respondent'saverments at face value, thus forcing the revenue toprove its case beyond all reasonable doubt? 3.Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the concerned assesses, we consider it to be unnecessary havingregard to the fact that the Tribunal has followed the very same order **** vi)Whether the ld. ITAT grossly erred in law byapplying two different yardsticks and standards byrequiring the appellant Revenue Dept. to pass testof cross examination of all witnesses and at thesame time being satisfied by all the respondent'saverments at face value, thus forcing the revenue toprove its case beyond all reasonable doubt? 3.Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the concerned assesses, we consider it to be unnecessary havingregard to the fact that the Tribunal has followed the very same order **** which has been gone into on merits in our order passed today in ITANo.174 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar Vs.Sh. Tejinder Singh, HUF) whereby we have remanded the matter tothe Tribunal for fresh decision after due opportunity to the parties tobe heard on merits. Accordingly, while disposing of these appeals insame terms, we remand the matters to the Tribunal for freshdecision on merits in accordance with law after hearing both theparties. 4.Since this order is being passed without notice to theassesses for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that ifrespondent-assesses are aggrieved by this order, they will be atliberty to move this Court for appropriate orders.5.The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 6.A copy of this order be placed on the file of eachconnected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 08, 2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge