Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Harjot Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.842 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sh. Harjot Singh. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Sukant Gupta, 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 the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsarin I.T.A. No.492/(ASR/2008 for the assessment year 1998-99proposing following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench was justified in lawand on 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 circumstancesof the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar wasjustified in following the order of the Special Bench ofITAT, New Delhi, which is ex-facie perverse and hasbeen challenged before the Hon’ble High Court. iii.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Amritsar was justified in following the order of the Special Bench ofITAT, New Delhi, when that order containedcontradictory findings such that, while Sh. ManojAggarwal was found to be a Hawala Operator andwas equated with M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kuamr/M/s Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (being a directortherein) however, a finding was given that M/s BemcoJewellers Pvt. Ltd./ M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumarwas engaged in genuine business of trade ofjewellery” iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, Hon’ble ITAT was justified in following itsown decision dated 11.09.2008 in the case of ACIT,Jalandhar Vs. Sh. K.L. Sehgal, Jalandhar and othersin ITA No.415(ASR) 2006 which followed the decisionof M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar/ M/s BemcoJewellers without appreciating the facts and evidenceon record in the present case? v.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, Hon’ble ITAT was justified in acceptingthe genuineness of the jewellery transactions of therespondent on probabilities, when the respondent’sconduct conflicted with the test of ‘Normal humanconduct’ principle laid down by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801? vi. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT grossly erred in lawby applying two different yardsticks and standards byrequiring the Appellant Revenue Deptt. To pass testof cross examination of all witnesses and at the sametime being satisfied by all the Respondent’saverments at face value, thus forcing the revenue toprove its case beyond all reasonable doubt?” 2.Learned counsel for the revenue states that thematter is covered in favour of the revenue by judgment of thisCourt dated 8.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.174 of 2009 CIT v. Sh.Tejinder Singh HUF, wherein order of the Tribunal which has been followed in the present case, was set aside and the matterwas remanded for fresh decision. 3. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the assessee, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard tothe fact that the Tribunal has followed the very same order whichhas been gone into on merits in our order in Sh. Tejinder Singh,HUF. 4. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal in sameterms, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision onmerits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 5. Since this order is being passed without notice to theassessee for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that ifrespondent-assessee is aggrieved by this order, he will be atliberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 24, 2011ashwani 3. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the assessee, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard tothe fact that the Tribunal has followed the very same order whichhas been gone into on merits in our order in Sh. Tejinder Singh,HUF. 4. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal in sameterms, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision onmerits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 5. Since this order is being passed without notice to theassessee for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that ifrespondent-assessee is aggrieved by this order, he will be atliberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 24, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE