Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Sh. Avtar Kukreja

ITA No. 163 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 163 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.8.2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Sh. Avtar Kukreja ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 163, 164 and 199 of2015 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant thesubstantial questions of law involved in the appeals are identical. Forbrevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 163 of 2015. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against theorder dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 775/DEL/2010 for the assessment year2001-02, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether Ld. Member of Hon'ble ITAThave erred in law in deleting the addition madeby the AO on the basis of valuation ofimmovable properties, since the reference tohave erred in law in deleting the addition madeby the AO on the basis of valuation ofimmovable properties, since the reference to registered valuer was made only when thedetails and value of properties owned by theassessee were not verifiable and the assesseehad failed to file his return of income for 16months, from the date of issue of statutorynotices for filing of return of income inpursuance of search & seizure action. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case andin law whether Ld. Member of Hon'ble ITAT arejustified in not accepting the valuation made bythe registered valuer who are the competentauthorities for such purpose and who had madevaluation of properties on the basis of approvedrates of competent authorities.in law whether Ld. Member of Hon'ble ITAT arejustified in not accepting the valuation made bythe registered valuer who are the competentauthorities for such purpose and who had madevaluation of properties on the basis of approvedrates of competent authorities. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case andin law whether Ld. Member of Hon'ble ITAT arejustified in not accepting the valuation made bythe registered valuer who have followed the dueprocedure of law by providing opportunities andarriving at a value after consideration of allsubmissions and evidence submitted by theassessee at the time of said valuation ofimmovable properties.in law whether Ld. Member of Hon'ble ITAT arejustified in not accepting the valuation made bythe registered valuer who have followed the dueprocedure of law by providing opportunities andarriving at a value after consideration of allsubmissions and evidence submitted by theassessee at the time of said valuation ofimmovable properties. 3.The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as pleaded in the appeal are that the search and seizure operations were carried out atthe premises of the assessee and his wife Smt. Meena Kukreja. Noticesunder Section 153A of the Act were served upon them to file their returnsof income which they did. During the course of the assessments, theassessee and his wife filed affidavits that the income and propertiesshown in the return of Smt. Meena belonged to the assessee. TheAssessing Officer finding that the properties have been acquired at alesser figure by the assessee, referred the same for valuation to the ITA No. 163 of 2015-3- 3.The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as pleaded in the appeal are that the search and seizure operations were carried out atthe premises of the assessee and his wife Smt. Meena Kukreja. Noticesunder Section 153A of the Act were served upon them to file their returnsof income which they did. During the course of the assessments, theassessee and his wife filed affidavits that the income and propertiesshown in the return of Smt. Meena belonged to the assessee. TheAssessing Officer finding that the properties have been acquired at alesser figure by the assessee, referred the same for valuation to the ITA No. 163 of 2015-3- Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer invited objections which theassessee filed in detail. The Assessing Officer vide assessment orderdated 30.12.2008 (Annexure A-1) made additions of ` 14,69,000/- onaccount of filing wrong/inaccurate particulars of the income. Feelingaggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) videcommon order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure A-II) dismissed the appealsfor the assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07 and partly allowed for theassessment year 2007-08. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed anappeal before the Tribunal who vide common order dated 30.11.2010(Annexure A-III) allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2001-02,2006-07 and 2007-08 and partly allowed the appeals for the assessmentyears 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. This gave rise to therevenue to approach this Court by way of instant appeal. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5.It is not disputed that ITA Nos. 92 and 94 of 2015 pertainingto the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07 arising from the sameorder raising similar issue have already been dismissed by this Courtvide order dated 21.5.2015 holding that the findings are purely questionsof fact. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in theseappeals. The appeals are dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2015 gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE ITA No. 163 of 2015 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 164 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.8.2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Sh. Avtar Kukreja ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 163 of 2015 (PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Sh. Avtar Kukreja). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2015gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE ITA No. 163 of 2015 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 199 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.8.2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Sh. Avtar Kukreja ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.Delay of 6 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2.For orders, see ITA No. 163 of 2015 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Sh. Avtar Kukreja). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2015gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE