Sat Narain Yadav v. Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocatefor The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 183 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.11.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad Sat Narain Yadav vs. ........Appellant .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present:Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocatefor the appellant Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocatefor the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J. C.M. No. 27356-CII of 2011 Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee does notwant to press the application. C.M. is dismissed as withdrawn. I.T.A. No. 183 of 2011 The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated11.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' NewDelhi in ITA No. 4547/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue has sought the following substantialquestions of law:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified inthe case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,52,000/- made by theAO on account of unexplained investment in purchaseof property by observing that no evidence was broughton record by the Assessing Officer indicating that theassessee has paid more than the amount disclosed inthe purchase deed, instead of getting proper enquiryconducted by directing the AO to make a reference tothe Valuation Officer under section 142A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961.” (ii) Whether the failure of the learned ITAT to getproper enquiry made by the lower authority throughreference to a valuation officer in a case where thefacts and the circumstances so demanded does notresult in failure which lays open the action of the Ld.IAT to correction by a higher authority in the light of theration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay HighCourt in Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT reported in 231 IR277? Learned counsel for the revenue admitted that thequestions raised in the present appeal were also the questions of lawin the judgment passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chandani Bhochar, (2010) 323 ITR 510. The saidquestions of law were decided against the revenue. In view of the said fact, the present appeal is dismissedas no substantial question of law arises for consideration. (HEMANT GUPTA)JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE