Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Puneet Udyog

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.537 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Puneet Udyog. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counselfor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against order dated 17.12.2009 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3041/Del/2009 for theassessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:- “I.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding theorder of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.24,78,220/- made by the Assessing Officer onaccount of suppression of production disregarding thefact that the assessee had failed to show the quantityof soap manufactured during the year correctly in itsbooks of accounts to the extent of Rs.24,78,220/-?case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding theorder of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.24,78,220/- made by the Assessing Officer onaccount of suppression of production disregarding thefact that the assessee had failed to show the quantityof soap manufactured during the year correctly in itsbooks of accounts to the extent of Rs.24,78,220/-?II.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding thecase, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the III. order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.11,04,543/- made by the Assessing Officer onaccount of freight, octroi and cartage expensesdisregarding the fact that the assessee had failed toprove the genuiness of the expenditure and the Ld.ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the lightof its own earlier years decisions in assessee’s caseagainst which revenue’s appeal is pending before theHon’ble High Court till date? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding theorder of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.6,10,596/- made by the Assessing Officer onaccount of sales promotion disregarding the fact thatthe assessee had failed to prove the genuineness ofincurring the expenses wholly and exclusively for thepurpose of business and the Ld. ITAT confirmed theorder of the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of its own earlierdecision dated 08.08.2008 in assessee’s case againstwhich revenue’s appeal is pending before the Hon’bleHigh Court till date?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states thatidentical appeal in the case of the assessee was dismissed bythis Court on 16.2.2010 being I.T.A. No.337 of 2009CITv. M/sPuneet Udyog. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 10, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE