Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S Giani Ram & Company, Liquour Contractor,Meham, District Rohtak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 375 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Versus M/s Giani Ram & Company, Liquour Contractor,Meham, District Rohtak ..........Appellant ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated26.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench,'SMC-II' New Delhi in ITA No. 2037/Del/2004 for the assessment year1995-96, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that theappeal filed by the revenue is incompetent as therevenue cannot be treated as aggrieved from the orderof the Ld. CIT (A)? (b)On the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT has erred in law in not adjudicating upon any of thespecific grounds taken by the revenue before it? 2.The Assessee is a liquor licencee. The Assessing Officertreated liability towards licence fee payable by the assessee to be incomefrom undisclosed sources. 3.However, out of the said income, deduction was allowed underSection 43B of the Act on account of licence fee paid to the ExciseDepartment. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A)dismissed the appeal and held that the Assessing Officer was justified intreating and declaring income of the assessee from undisclosed sourcesand also in allowing the deduction under Section 43B of the Act. 4.The revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal submittingthat the issue of admissibility of deduction was not before the CIT(A). 5.The Tribunal held that CIT(A) having dismissed the appeal andupheld the assessment, the revenue cannot be held to be aggrieved by theorder of CIT(A). 6.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that since the CIT(A)dealt with the issue of admissibility of the deduction, the revenue wasaggrieved by the order of CIT(A). 7.We do not find any merit in this appeal. The CIT(A) havingupheld the order of assessment and not interfered with any liability underthe order of assessment, the Tribunal was justified in observing thatrevenue cannot be treated to be aggrieved party. 8.In view of above, no substantial question of law arises.9.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 16, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No