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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA No.688 of 2010 Date 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.688 and 690 as it has beenstated by learned counsel for the revenue that both the appeals involvecommon questions. ITA No.688 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi bench ‘B’ New Delhipassed in ITA No.2883/Del/2009 dated 29.1.2010 for the assessment year2003-04, claiming following 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)had duly put all the objections and documents to all theparties for their comments, it cannot be said that there wasviolation of provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IncomeTax Rules, 1962, despite the fact that opportunity was given by the AO under section 142A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 to the assessee during the course of assessmentproceedings and any evidence if any or objections to theDVO’s report was to be submitted before the AO which wasnot done and that the assessee was not eligible to producenew evidence for the first time before the CIT(A) and alsonot appreciating the fact that there is no provision for arevised report under section 142A of the 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 thatthere was no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,1962, despite the fact that none of the conditions prescribedunder rule 46A were satisfied by the assessee for admissionof additional evidence in as much as there was no occasionwhere (a) the AO refused to admit the evidence, (b) or theassessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producingthe evidence which was called upon to be produced by theAO, (c) or the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause forproducing before the AO any evidence which is relevant tothe ground of appeal, (d) or the AO passed the assessmentorder without giving the assessee sufficient opportunity toadduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal? iii) Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts andin the 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 invalidreport, be treated as investment and holding that theinvestment made in the building account under the head‘Humidification Plant’ and ‘Trenches’ considered for allowing relief to the assessee is completely ignoring theprovision of section 142A of the Income Tax Act? It has been fairly stated by learned counsel for the revenue thatthese questions are covered against the revenue by order passed today in ITANo.721 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. M/s OmOverseas, Shiv Nagar, Panipat. Accordingly, the said questions cannot beheld to be substantial questions of law. Both the appeals are dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 31, 2011‘gs’ (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge