The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S Ghunna Ram & Sons

ITC No. 35 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITC No. 35 of 1999Date of Decision: 9.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Versus M/s Ghunna Ram & Sons ....Petitioner. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate and Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short “the Act”) seeks mandamus to the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) to refer the following question of law to this Court for itsopinion:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that theunexplained peak cash introduced to the tune ofRs.3,56,500/- was relatable to the amounts declaredby the assessee under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985for the assessment years: 1976-77 and 1977-78 and consequently allowing the benefits of set off in theassessment year 1984-85?” 2.Brief facts as narrated in the petition are that the assesseeintroduced cash in the books of account for the assessment year 1984-85 in the names of various creditors, bank etc. amounting toRs.3,56,500/- on 31.3.1984 and failed to explain the sources thereof.Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,56,500/-.Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”] whodeleted the said addition holding that the assessee had disclosed a sumof Rs.2,40,000/- for the assessment year 1976-77 and a sum ofRs.3,50,000/- for the assessment year 1977-78 under the AmnestyScheme, 1985. Against the order of the CIT (A), the department filedan appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the department. The petition underSection 256(1) of the Act having been rejected by the Tribunal, hencethe present petition. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.The CIT (A) had recorded that the assessee while makingdisclosure under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985 had disclosed a sum ofRs. 2,40,000/- for the assessment year 1976-77 and further a sum ofRs.3,50,000/- for the assessment year 1977-78. The benefit of theaforesaid disclosure had been allowed to the assessee while deletingthe addition of Rs.3,56,500/- in the current assessment year. Therelevant observations of the CIT (A) read thus:- “There is no denying the fact that the appellant firm disclosed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for the asstt. year1976-77 and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for the asstt.year 1977-78 under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985.The note appended with the disclosure petition read,“It is understood that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-was available with the firm/partners as on 31.3.1977and in subsequent years till today.” The amountsreferred to supra have been assessed as per thedisclosure of cash available with the appellant, by thelearned ACIT for the asstt. year 1976-77 vide orderdated 31.5.1988, and for the asstt. year 1977-78 videorder dated 31.7.1988. Having assessed these twoamounts as cash available as on 31.3.1977 and “insubsequent years till today”, adjustment has to bemade in view of the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court, in the case of M/S AnantharamVeersinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT referred to supra.Accordingly, I hold that there is no justification for theimpugned addition of Rs.3,56,500/-. The same isaccordingly deleted. This ground succeeds and theappellant gets a relief of Rs.3,56,500/-.” 5.Further on appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal whiledismissing the appeal had recorded as under:- “Even in the present case, there is nothing to showthat the amount declared under the Amnesty Schemehad been invested by the assessee in any other asset or that it had been spent in any other manner.” 5.Further on appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal whiledismissing the appeal had recorded as under:- “Even in the present case, there is nothing to showthat the amount declared under the Amnesty Schemehad been invested by the assessee in any other asset or that it had been spent in any other manner.” 6.The findings which had been recorded by the CIT(A) aswell as by the Tribunal, as noticed above, were not shown to beperverse in any manner. The Tribunal while deciding the reference filedby the revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act noticed that the issuehad been decided on appreciation of evidence and no proposition of lawwas involved. 7.In view of the aforesaid findings, no error could be said tohave arisen in the order passed by the Tribunal declining to refer thequestion of law claimed by the revenue. Accordingly, there is no meritin this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE