Jasbir Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No. 547 of 2009 (O&M)Date of decision: November 12, 2009 Jasbir Singh ...Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Patiala. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the orderpassed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B' Chandigarh in ITA No.108/Chandi/2008 dated 31.12.2008, proposing to raise the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences onrecord and established principles of law the ITAT was justifiedin confirming the orders of the authorities below in finalizingthe assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 withoutconforming to the proviso to Section 144 (1) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and established principles of law the ITAT was justifiedin confirming the orders of the authorities below in treating thedeposits in banks out of various known/declared sources beingthat of agricultural income, interest income and advance fromsale of agricultural land duly evidenced by various evidences,so that so the orders of the ITAT are perverse ? iii) Whether on the facts, circumstances and evidence on recordand established principles of law the ITAT was justified inconfirming the orders of the authorities below in treating thedeclared income of son who being of age of majority and dulyassessed individually as unexplained income of appellant fromunknown sources which leads to double taxation beingunwarranted ? iv)Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and againstthe provisions of law” 2.The assessee filed return in pursuance of notice under Section142 (1) declaring nil income, apart from non-taxable income fromagricultural. The Assessing Officer found investments in banks anddeposits in the name of the son of the assessee and treating the said amountas unexplained income, additions were made, under Section 144. CIT (A)and the Tribunal upheld the assessment. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4.As regards question (i), attention of the learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to second proviso to Section 144. Notice under Section142 having been served upon the assessee, there was no error in makingassessment under Section 144. The question raised cannot be held to be ITA No. 547 of 2009 substantial question of law. 5.As regards questions (ii) to (iv), we have perused the findingsconcurrently recorded by the three authorities. The said findings are basedon appreciation of evidence. Argument advanced by the learned counsel forthe appellant that the authorities did not appreciate the evidence correctly isnot enough to hold that substantial question law arises. 6.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 12, 2009 prem (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE