Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Chandigarh v. Amarjit Singh Randhawa And Another

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 1097 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 23, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh …Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh Randhawa and another …Respondents CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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 inthe Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has challenged order dated 29.2.2008 (P-7)passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission concluding thatthe income shown by the assessee-respondent No. 1 as loan from theunsecured creditors stood sufficiently explained as every one of theunsecured creditors had appeared before the Assessing Officer andowed advancement of loan by stating that the income derived by themis from the agricultural land and they owned fertile agricultural landin the States of Punjab and Haryana. 2.We have perused the order and also the statements of theunsecured creditors recorded by the Assessing Officer in pursuance tothe direction issued by the Settlement Commission on 31.1.2007. Ithas been specified that the first Assessing Officer (Shri Pardeep Kumar) had already recorded the statements of various unsecuredcreditors who in categorical terms have accepted advancement of loanand also stated that the income derived by them is from agriculturalland. The credit worthiness of the unsecured creditors has beenaccepted by the Settlement Commission and the attempt made by thesubsequent Assessing Officer (Shri Anil Sharma) and the reportsubmitted by him stating that the assessee-respondent No. 1 has failedto produce any evidence, has not been accepted being against specificdirections issued by the Settlement Commission on 31.1.2007. It isnot a case where the assessee-respondent No. 1 has been allowed togo scot-free but he has been saddled with tax liability of Rs. 50 lacsafter accepting the partial explanation tendered by him in the wake ofthe statements made by the unsecured creditors. Moreover, therequest of the assessee-respondent No. 1 for waiver of interest underSection 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also rejected but hisprayer for immunity from prosecution as well as penalty was acceptedin view of the cooperation rendered by the assessee-respondent No. 1 3.Having heard learned counsel we find no jurisdictionalerror or error in law in the order passed by the SettlementCommission warranting admission. The appreciation of evidence bythe Settlement Commission cannot be re-opened merely becauseanother view is possible. We could have admitted the matter had theother view was the only possible view. That position is not availablein this case. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same isdismissed. January 23, 2009 Pkapoor (H.S. BHALLA) JUDGE