M/S. Kuldip Sood Enterprises v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhianawee

ITA-128-2001 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA-128-2001 (O&M)Date of Decision : 10.72.202 M/s. Kuldip Sood Enterprises ..--- Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhianawee RESpondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN888 Present ;Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Standing counselfor the respondents, 888 AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) inThis appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.10.2000passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) passed in Income Tax Appeal No,999/Chandi/1993 for A.Y. 1988-89 claiming the following questions of law:- (a) Whether in thefacts and circumstances of the case, orderAnnexure P-1 and P-3 are legally unsustainable ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theorder of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal in sustaining an additionof Rs. 4,84,450/- on account of M/s Globe EngineeringWorks not responding to the queries of the Income TaxDepartment 1s legally unsustainble ? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITA-128-2001 (O&M) order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in sustaining anaddition of Rs. 4,84,450/- in the case of the assessee-appellant on account of the some third party enquiries 1slegally sustainable ? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaddition of Rs. 4,84,450/- 1s legally sustainable as the saidaddition being based on mere presumptions and conjectureswhich cannotform the basisfor adjudication ? ?DThis appeal relates to the disallowances of certain amounts which as per the assess were paid to his supplier but which was doubted|by the authorities below. 3,Brief facts are that the payment in question as per theassessee was made to M/s. Globe Engineering Works, New Delhi forcertain second hand machinery supplied in the financial year 1987-88.The Assessing Officer found that at one stage, one Mr. Gulshan Kumarhad opened an account in the capacity of proprietor of M/s. GlobeEngineering Works, Near Manju Cinema, G.T.Road, Ludhiana whowithdrew the amount by cash and similarly, another person called RajeshKumar opened another account as proprietor of M/s. Globe EngineeringWorks with the address of Industrial Area, AT Ludhiana (67B), whichwas also withdrawn in cash. I[t was further found that both the accountsholder were introduced by a relative of the appellant-assessee who wasemployed in that very branch of that bank. On the basis of thisdocumentation, the authorities below came to the conclusion that theappellant had not been able to satisfactorily prove that the payments madeto these persons were related to the purchase of second hand machinery. ITA-128-2001 (O&M) perverse reading of the evidence. 5Accordingly, no substantial question of law proposed arises. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 6 Since the main case has been dismissed, the pendingapplication, if any, also stands disposed of. 10.72.202anuradha (AJAY TEWARTD)JUDGE(AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned2Yes/NoWhether reportable2Yes/No