Ita/513/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sandeep Poddar

ITA No. 513 of 2006 (O&M)-|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 513 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II ....... Appellant *#+&,& Sh. Sandeep Poddar Prop. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing counselfor the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated24.2.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (B), in ITA Nos.1202 and 1235/CHANDI/2004, for theassessment year 2001-02, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the tacts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified inholding that the assessee was carrying its businessof assembly of computer and publication of books atParwanoo in absence of any reliable and cogentevidence by ignoring the material and evidence onrecord (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in arriving theconclusion that the assessee was carrying businessat Shed No.90, Sector 1 Parwanoo on the basis ofcertificates from different authorities and all thecertificates contain different addresses of assesseeand none of the certificate carry the address of Shed No.90, Sector-1, Parwanoo? (i11) Whether on the tacts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding thatmanutacturing has also taken place in respect of 167computers when parts like SMPS, CPU or HDD formanutacturing a computer were not available whichis essential for manufacturing of computer andallowing deduction u/s 80-IA of the I.T. Act, 1961?(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80-IA in holding that publication ofbooks is manutacturing when assessee is not apublisher and is getting it printed from the placeswhere no deduction u/s 80-I[A is available (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting theaddition of Rs.14,86,015/- on account of boguspurchase on different conclusion and adopting adifferent basis which was not the ground of appealof the assessee and is an action un-jurisdictional? (v1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting asidethe addition in resorting the case to the file of theAO on the issue of disallowance u/s 40A(3) whenthe assessee failed to furnish the address of the partyand the additional evidences were furnished beforethe CIT (A) for the first time without giving any ITA No. 513 of 2006 (O&M) -3- reason for its admission, in contravention of Rule460A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and despite number oOpportunities granted by the AO during the courseof assessment? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, she does not wish to press the present appeal,as the tax effect involved is less than |Ly20 lacs. However, she praysthat liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revivalof the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 29.03.2016TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE