Shri Kamal Kishore v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Leela Bhawan, Patiala

ITA No.339 of 2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.339 of 2016 (O&M)Date of decision: 02.05.2017 Shri Kamal Kishore Versus ....Petitioner Commissioner of Income Tax, Leela Bhawan, Patiala ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Z.S. Klar, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the respondent-revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CM No.545-CII of 2017 Written statement on behalf of the respondent filed along with theapplication is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.339 of 2016 This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961(in short 'the Act') against the order dated 11.02.2016 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, for theassessment year 2009-10 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “A.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified inconcurring with the findings of CIT(A) in rejecting theapplication for additional evidence under given facts andcircumstances of the case as filed under Rule 46A of theIncome Tax Rules 1962, there being reasonable cause, andhence in not admitting the additional evidences for not filingthe same before the authorities below by clearly defying wellconcurring with the findings of CIT(A) in rejecting theapplication for additional evidence under given facts andcircumstances of the case as filed under Rule 46A of theIncome Tax Rules 1962, there being reasonable cause, andhence in not admitting the additional evidences for not filingthe same before the authorities below by clearly defying well settled law that where the documents have bearing on the case,the same need to be taken into consideration by the competentauthorities as was held in the case of TEK RAM (DEAD)THROUGH LR'S VS. CIT 93 DTR 350 (SC)? B. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified inconcurring with the findings of CIT(A) in rejecting theapplication for additional evidence being chart of comparablecases alongwith supporting documents under given facts andcircumstances of the case though holding these not to beadditional evidences but not taking the same intoconsideration and thereby confirming the application of NPrate of 1% which is against the facts of the present case andbeing unreasonably high in the same nature of trade as that ofthe appellant it being a last fact finding body by clearlydefying well settled law that comparable cases is one of thebest evidence for estimating of GP/NP rate and also that it wasthe bounden duty of the AO to have brought on record thecomparable cases or any other tangible material for arriving atestimate rate of GP/NP which he failed to do so?concurring with the findings of CIT(A) in rejecting theapplication for additional evidence being chart of comparablecases alongwith supporting documents under given facts andcircumstances of the case though holding these not to beadditional evidences but not taking the same intoconsideration and thereby confirming the application of NPrate of 1% which is against the facts of the present case andbeing unreasonably high in the same nature of trade as that ofthe appellant it being a last fact finding body by clearlydefying well settled law that comparable cases is one of thebest evidence for estimating of GP/NP rate and also that it wasthe bounden duty of the AO to have brought on record thecomparable cases or any other tangible material for arriving atestimate rate of GP/NP which he failed to do so? C. Whether the ITAT is justified in concurring with findings ofthe authorities below and thereby confirming the impugnedaddition of Rs1,00,000/- and Rs.61,281/- without appreciatingthe fact that in cases of estimation of income as per GP/NP nofurther deductions are to be made except for depreciation andinterest and also no additions or disallowances are called forin view of trite law and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court inthe case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS.GIAN CHAND LABOUR CONTRACTORS 316 ITR 127(P&H) and also held in the case of COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JALANDHAR-II, JALANDHAR V. M/SAGGARWAL ENGG. CO. (JAL.), JALANDHARCANTT. ITA No.113 of 2006 dated 24.07.2006 wherein thisHon'ble High Court reiterated the law laid down by Hon'blethe authorities below and thereby confirming the impugnedaddition of Rs1,00,000/- and Rs.61,281/- without appreciatingthe fact that in cases of estimation of income as per GP/NP nofurther deductions are to be made except for depreciation andinterest and also no additions or disallowances are called forin view of trite law and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court inthe case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS.GIAN CHAND LABOUR CONTRACTORS 316 ITR 127(P&H) and also held in the case of COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JALANDHAR-II, JALANDHAR V. M/SAGGARWAL ENGG. CO. (JAL.), JALANDHARCANTT. ITA No.113 of 2006 dated 24.07.2006 wherein thisHon'ble High Court reiterated the law laid down by Hon'ble the Allahabad High Court in COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX V. BANWARI LAL BANSHIDHAR,(1998) 229 ITR 229?INCOME-TAX V. BANWARI LAL BANSHIDHAR,(1998) 229 ITR 229? D. Whether the ITAT is justified in concurring with findings ofthe authorities below and thereby confirming the impugnedaddition on account of income returned of Rs.1,46,400/-without appreciating the fact that in cases of estimation ofincome as per GP/NP no further additions or disallowancesare called for?the authorities below and thereby confirming the impugnedaddition on account of income returned of Rs.1,46,400/-without appreciating the fact that in cases of estimation ofincome as per GP/NP no further additions or disallowancesare called for? E. That the findings of ITAT in confirming the impugnedadditions without adhering to various contentious, evidencesand additional evidences filed which is perverse and illegal?” additions without adhering to various contentious, evidencesand additional evidences filed which is perverse and illegal?” 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellantsubmitted that he may be allowed to withdraw this appeal with liberty to theappellant to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Act before theTribunal. 3.Dismissed as withdrawn. 4.However, it shall be open to the appellant to take recourse to theremedies as may be available to him in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGEJUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN)JUDGE May 02, 2017R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No