Raj Kumar Wadhwa (D) Through L.r v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-238-2014 Date of decision:- 10.04.2015 Raj Kumar Wadhwa (D) through L.R ....Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL) This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2013 inrespect of the assessment year 2007-08. One of the main issues that arose beforethe Tribunal was an issue of fact. The appellant claimed a deduction in respect ofamounts allegedly paid to sub-brokers/sub-agents. This was disbelieved by the Assessing Officer and by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The question of fact, therefore, is whether the assessee had in fact madepayment to these sub-agents/sub-brokers. If so, whether the said payments weregenuine or not. If they were, the assessee would be entitled to deduction. 3. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the order of the ITAT is perverse and unreasonable? 4. Assessment orders had been passed also in respect of other assessmentyears. The assessee died on 21.07.2013 i.e. during the pendency of the appealbefore the Tribunal. The impugned order is dated 30.09.2013. The appeal, is,therefore, filed by his legal representative. 5. These issues had also arisen in respect of other assessment years. However,for each assessment year, it would be a question of fact. Even assuming that it hasbeen rightly found in respect of other assessment years that the payments to the alleged sub-agents were not genuine and, therefore, deductions could not beallowed, the finding would not necessarily apply to the other assessment years. Bythe impugned order, the Tribunal has merely quoted in extenso its order passed inthe appeals in respect of the assessment years 2006-07. This approach is totallyincorrect. The Tribunal would also have to consider the facts pertaining to theassessment year in question namely 2007-08. Having failed to consider the vitalissues, the order is liable to be set aside as being perverse. 6. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated30.09.2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a freshdecision in accordance with law. (S.J.VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 10.04.2015shivani