The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Shri Ashok Kumar And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA No.531 of 2009Date of decision: 26.7.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar and others -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counselfor the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarhdated 26.2.2009 in IT/SS A No.17/Chandi/ 2008 for the block periodending on 14.9.1999 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned Tribunal is right in law in holding that theoffice note dated 21.5.2001 which was appended toassessment order passed under section 158 BC in the caseof searched person Shri Anil Goel alias Dalal, does notconstitute a satisfaction notice within the parameter ofsection 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect ofthe respondent-assessee who advanced money through thesearched person; 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned Tribunal is right in law in holding thatthere has been delay in recording of satisfaction prior toissue of notice under section 158 BD of the Act, even whenthe satisfaction was duly recorded vide office note dated21.5.2001 appended below the assessment order undersection 158BC of the Act passed in the case of the searchedpersons Shri Anil Kumar Goel alias Dalal; 3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned ITAT was right in law in upholding thelearned CIT(A)’s order quashing the assessment order onthe ground of delayed recording of satisfaction as requiredunder section 158BD of the Act, even when suchsatisfaction was not required being the Assessing Officerfor the searched person as well as for the other personincluding the respondent asasessee, to be the one and thesame?” 2.Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter iscovered by judgment of this Court dated 28.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.22 of2008CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works, wherein all the above questionshave been answered in favour of the revenue after hearing the partiesand the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision. 3. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to theassessees, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard to the fact thatthe matter is covered and is being remanded to the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal in terms ofabove order, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing learned counsel for theparties. 5. Since this order is being passed without notice to theassesses, for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that ifrespondent-assessee is aggrieved by this order, he will be at liberty tomove this Court for appropriate orders. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 26, 2011‘gs’ ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE