Shri Sarishti Paul v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar And Another

ITA No.125 of 2000 388-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.125 of 2000Date of Decision: 03.03.2020 Shri Sarishti Paul Versus Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel andMr. Varun Isshar, Jr. Standing Counselfor the Revenue. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) **** [1]This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Amritsar, challenging an addition of =2,48,048/-,which as per the Revenue, was unexplained investment forconstruction which the appellant had carried out claiming followingsubstantial questions of law:- “()Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theorders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-6 can be sustained at law?(11)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaddition of Rs.2,48,048/- on account of alleged unexplainedinvestment in the construction offactory building at Noida canbe legally sustained in as much as the construction of thebuilding was over a span of three years whereas the addtiton ITA No.125 of 2000 on account of difference has been made in one assessment yearalone? (111)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaddition of Rs.2,45,0485/- on account of alleged unexplaineinvestment in the construction offactory building at Noida canbe legally sustained in as much as the rate taken by te D.V.O.as per the Office premises and not per the factory rate as thebuilding constructed at Noida were factory premises of theassessee-appellant? (iv)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaddition of Rs.2,48,048/- on account of alleged unexplainedinvestment in the construction offactory building at Noidacan be sustained at law the same being based on merepresumptions and conjectures which can notform the basisforadjudication?” [2]On 27.01.2020, following order was passed:- “The issue which arises in these two appeals is whetherunexplained income could be added in the single year ofassessement or whether it had to travel back towards relevantyears in which the construction was done. Adjourned to 04.02.2020. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file ofconnected case(s).” [3]On 10.02.2020, learned counsel for the Revenue statedthat the issue which had been raised could not be verified by him asthe record is not available. [4]Today again learned counsel for the Revenue states thatrecord is not available. He is not in a position to deny that in such acase the addition would have to be made for the period in whichconstruction was carried out and could not be totaled at in the last year. [5]Learned counsel for the appellant states that theappellant has certain material which may enable the authoritiesbelow to decide this issue. [6]In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. Theimpugned order qua addition of 42,48,048/- is set aside and matter isremanded back to the assessing officer to work out the tax liability asper law after considering the material which the appellant mayproduce. [7]Since the appeal is disposed of, the pending application,if any, also stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE March 03, 2020 panka] bawejaI. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes /Noa2. Whether reportablYes /No