Swaraj Engines Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 890 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 3.8.2009 Swaraj Engines Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh ..........Appellant ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1..The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 11.7.2008 passed in ITANo. 208/Chandi/2006 for the assessment year 1996-97, proposing to raisefollowing substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of theprovisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961, the initiation of the proceedings in pursuance tothe judgment of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237ITR 579 (SC) is covered within the words “reasons tobelieve”? (ii)Whether under the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal order is sustainable in havingdisregard to the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench? 2.Learned counsel for the assessee does not press question (i)and with regard to question (ii), he says that matter has been dealt with bythe Tribunal in para 9 and his contention was wrongly recorded. Hiscontention was that interest income, if not covered under Section 80-I wasrequired to be taken into account as income from business or from othersources and was required to be taken into account after makingadjustment of the interest paid. 3.The grievance of the assessee is, thus, against error innoticing argument. The remedy of the assessee for such grievance is tomove Tribunal itself. No substantial question of law arises forconsideration under Section 260-A of the Act. 4.The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 03, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No