The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnal v. M/S Om Overseas, Shiv Nagar, Panipat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No.692 of 2010Date of decision: 31.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal -----Appellant Vs. M/s Om Overseas, Shiv Nagar, Panipat ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. This order will dispose of ITA Nos.692 and 700 as it has been statedby learned counsel for the revenue that both the appeals involve commonquestions. ITA No.692 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi bench ‘B’ New Delhi passed in ITANo.2723/Del/2009 dated 29.1.2010 for the assessment year 2001-02, claimingfollowing substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned ITAT was right in holding that the CIT(A) hadduly put all the objections and documents to all the parties fortheir comments, it cannot be said that there was violation ofprovisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,1962, despite the fact that opportunity was given by the AOunder section 142A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to theassessee during the course of assessment proceedings and anyevidence if any or objections to the DVO’s report was to besubmitted before the AO which was not done and that the assessee was not eligible to produce new evidence for the firsttime before the CIT(A) and also not appreciating the fact thatthere is no provision for a revised report under section 142A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned ITAT was right in law in observing that therewas no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962,despite the fact that none of the conditions prescribed under rule46A were satisfied by the assessee for admission of additionalevidence in as much as there was no occasion where (a) the AOrefused to admit the evidence, (b) or the assessee was preventedby sufficient cause from producing the evidence which wascalled upon to be produced by the AO, (c) or the assessee wasprevented by sufficient cause for producing before the AO anyevidence which is relevant to the ground of appeal, (d) or the AOpassed the assessment order without giving the assesseesufficient opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to any groundof appeal? iii) Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right inarriving at the conclusion that a sum of Rs.91,30,355/- on‘Humidification Plant’ and Rs.1,20,01,718/- under the head‘Trenches’ considered by the DVO’s subsequent invalid report,be treated as investment and holding that the investment made inthe building account under the head ‘Humidification Plant’ and‘Trenches’ considered for allowing relief to the assessee iscompletely ignoring the provision of section 142A of the IncomeTax Act? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned ITAT is right in quashing the assessment madeby the AO under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act,1961, rightly reopened by the AO after obtaining approval fromthe CIT within the stipulated time allowed under section 151(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the proviso below section147 read with explanation (1) there under?” It has been fairly stated by learned counsel for the revenue thatquestions (i) to (iii) are covered against the revenue by order passed today in ITANo.721 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. M/s Om Overseas,Shiv Nagar, Panipat. Accordingly, the said questions cannot be held to besubstantial questions of law. iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the learned ITAT is right in quashing the assessment madeby the AO under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act,1961, rightly reopened by the AO after obtaining approval fromthe CIT within the stipulated time allowed under section 151(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the proviso below section147 read with explanation (1) there under?” It has been fairly stated by learned counsel for the revenue thatquestions (i) to (iii) are covered against the revenue by order passed today in ITANo.721 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. M/s Om Overseas,Shiv Nagar, Panipat. Accordingly, the said questions cannot be held to besubstantial questions of law. As regards Question (iv), even if reassessment proceedings werevalid, the decision having been rendered against the revenue on Questions (i) to(iii), this question cannot be held to be substantial question of law. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge