The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri P.k.sarwal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 366 of 2009 (O&M)Date of decision 29 .1.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad... Appellant Versus Shri P.K.Sarwal... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga ,Advocate for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of bunch of four appeals as they aredirected against a common order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (for brevity 'theTribunal') in ITA Nos. 5440-5443/Del/2004 in respect of the same assesseefor the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. For the purpose of thisjudgement, facts are being taken from ITA No.366 of 2009. In respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee filedhis return on 19.3.2002 declaring an income of Rs. 67,420/-. The assessmentwas completed vide order dated 26.3.2002 passed under Section 143(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 at an income of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The assesseepreferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) against theorder dated 26.3.2002 which was allowed. The Commissioner of IncomeTax (A) assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 25,000/- per monthwhich comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Revenue did not accept the order of the ITA No. 366 of 2009(O&M) CIT(A) and preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal videorder dated 16.11.2007 restored the matter to the file of the AssessingOfficer with the direction that assessment was to be framed de-novo as perprovisions of law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity ofhearing. The Tribunal has passed the above order on the basis of theconcession made by the parties, which is apparent from the perusal offollowing paras : “ The assessee did not submit the details. Taking into accountthe low house hold withdrawals, the AO estimated the incomeof the assessee for all these years at Rs. 25,000/- p.m. therebyassessing the business income of the assessee at Rs. 3 lacs. TheLd. DR relying on the assessment orders pleaded that theadditions have wrongly been deleted in part ld CIT(A) and theorder of AO should be restored. On the other hand the ld.AR of the assessee pleaded thatthe assessee has not received the copy of grounds of appealfiled by the revenue. He contended that assessee is alsoaggrieved by the order of CIT(A) and wants to file crossobjections. However, he contended that in the interest ofjustice, if the appeals are restored back to the file of the AO formaking de-novo assessment, the assessee has no objection. The ld. DR did not object to such submission of the ld.AR.” Once the order dated 16.11.2007 is based on the concession made bythe parties then such an order is not challengeable. The appeal is whollywithout merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeals. (M.M.Kumar) Judge 29.1.2010 (Ajay Tewari )Judge okg * ITA No. 366 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.SarwalITA No. 367 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.SarwalITA No. 368 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.SarwalITA No. 369 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.Sarwal