The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda v. M/S N.w.w., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abohar

I.T.A. No. 357 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 357 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 22.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ..........Appellant Versus M/s N.W.W., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abohar..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mrs. Savita Saxena, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 27.11.2008passed in ITA No. 109(ASR)/2008 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-II, Bhatinda Vs. M/s N.W.W., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abhor), forthe assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:- (i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe department is under obligation to accept anyamount of surrender income which is not based onthe documents found in the survey u/s 133A.”the department is under obligation to accept anyamount of surrender income which is not based onthe documents found in the survey u/s 133A.” (ii)“On the facts and circumstances of the case whetherthe Ld. ITAT is justified in not giving any finding on theissue of unrecorded sales when the CIT (Appeals)the Ld. ITAT is justified in not giving any finding on theissue of unrecorded sales when the CIT (Appeals) order is not a speaking order on this issue, particularlyas how returned income of Rs. 2,18,162/- is sufficientto cover profit and initial investment of the unrecordedsales of Rs.38,36,534/-”. 2.A survey was conducted under Section133A of the Act on4.12.2003 at the premises of the assessee. In pursuance thereof, theassessee made a surrender with condition that their will be no penalty orprosecution. It has been found by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal thatthe surrender was accepted. However, the Assessing Officer addedtaxable income over and above the surrendered amount, which wasdeleted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding ofthe CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal is against the record and there was noacceptance of the surrender and the Assessing Officer was justified inmaking the addition, over and above the surrendered income. 5.We are unable to hold that any substantial question of lawarises. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the department hadaccepted the surrendered income and if the finding is against the record,the remedy of the appellant is to apply for rectification and not by way ofthis appeal. 6.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 22, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No