Sr v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Yamuna Nagar And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH sr. No. 203 (3 cases)CWP2088|2016Decided on: 09.12.2016M/s JMD Plytech, Jagadhri PetitionerVERSUSJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,Yamuna Nagar and another |..... Respondents||CWP209002016M/s Himalyan Ply Boards, Jagadhri—__ PetitionerVERSUSJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,Yamuna Nagar and another |..... Respondents| on CWP2QQ452016 M/s Assam Wood & Allied Products, Jagadhri—__ PetitionerVERSUSJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,Yamuna Nagar and another |..... Respondents| CORAMHON;BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICEHON;BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL PresentMr.N.P.S.Sahni, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the respondentsAAAAAAA S.J.VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for the purpose of giving an opinion ontwo issues namely whether all the entries in each of the note books weremade on the same day and not on a day to day basis and whether the entriesin each of the note books were made on the same day on which theStatement(s) of each of the petitioners were recorded during the course ofthe said survey. |The petitioners’ case is that they were compelled to make theentries in each of the note books by the authorities as well as to prepare andsign the said statements on the same day. The two questions sought to bereferred to the FSL are certainly relevant although they may well not beconclusive of the petitioners’ contentions. For instance, as contended by therespondents, they could have been written at the same time but earlier andwithout any interference by the authorities. In other words, the entries inthe note books could be a consolidated record prepared simultaneously ofthe loose sheets maintained earlier. It is neither necessary nor proper for usto express any view in this regard. The ends of justice require that thepetitioners ought to have an opportunity of establishing this fact whateverbe the inference that may be drawn on the basis of the report. onThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersmakes a statement on behalf of each of the petitioners that they are willingto have any Government/Government-approved FSL examine this evidenceand to submit a report on the two issues mentioned above. He further statesthat they are willing to leave it to the department itself to forward the sameto any Government/Government-approved ESL. 4In these circumstances, each of the petitions is disposed of by (1)The note books and the corresponding statement(s) ineach of the cases shall be forwarded by the respondents to anyGovernment/Government-approved FSL for the purpose ofdetermining whether the entries in each of the note books weremade at the same time or whether they were made at differenttimes and whether the entries in each of the note books weremade on the same day as the corresponding statement(s)prepared and signed by the respective petitioners during thecourse of the survey. © The FSL shall forward the report to the respondents whoShall furnish a copy thereof to the petitioners. Needless to addthat the parties are always at liberty to either accept orchallenge the report(s) or any part or aspect thereof. (11)The framing of the assessment shall remain stayed uptothe receipt of the FSL report by the respondents and for aperiod of 10 weeks thereafter. However, immediately upon thereceipt of the report by the petitioners and the respondents theassessment may continue. (111)The costs of the FSL shall be paid by the petitioners ineach of the cases as demanded by the FSL or the respondents. 5The learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to theabove order. To leave no room for doubt, he states that the petitioners willnot in any event raise any contention on the question of limitation till theexpiry of the aforesaid period of 10 weeks. He further states that the issueof limitation will not be raised by any of the petitioners even if the (11)The framing of the assessment shall remain stayed uptothe receipt of the FSL report by the respondents and for aperiod of 10 weeks thereafter. However, immediately upon thereceipt of the report by the petitioners and the respondents theassessment may continue. (111)The costs of the FSL shall be paid by the petitioners ineach of the cases as demanded by the FSL or the respondents. 5The learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to theabove order. To leave no room for doubt, he states that the petitioners willnot in any event raise any contention on the question of limitation till theexpiry of the aforesaid period of 10 weeks. He further states that the issueof limitation will not be raised by any of the petitioners even if the assessment order is made after the aforesaid period of 10 weeks,A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connectedCaS@eS1 S.J. VAZIFDAR |CHIEF JUSTICE09.12.2016| DEEPAK SIBAL |sShamsheJUDGEWhether reasoned/speakingYes / NoWhether reportableYes / No