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

ITA No. 81 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 81 of 2000 Date of Decision: 14.8.2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ....Appellant. Versus M/s Ghunna Ram & Sons, Patiala ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.The revenue has claimed the following substantial questionof law in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 28.10.1999 (AnnexureA-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.914/Chandi/1992 for the assessment year 1984-85:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the additionof ` 55,000/- made by the A.O. u/s 154 by holding thatthis amount relates to the amount already declaredunder the Amnesty Scheme for the A.Y. 1976-77 and1977-78 and consequently allowed the benefit of setoff in the A.Y. 1984-85?”case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the additionof ` 55,000/- made by the A.O. u/s 154 by holding thatthis amount relates to the amount already declaredunder the Amnesty Scheme for the A.Y. 1976-77 and1977-78 and consequently allowed the benefit of setoff in the A.Y. 1984-85?” 2.Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the presentappeal are that the assessee is a commission agent dealing infoodgrains and filed its return on 31.3.1985 declaring an income at` 1,48,706/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(3) of theAct which was completed on 31.3.1987. The Assessing Officer videassessment orders dated 30.3.1990 and dated 18.3.1991 (Annexure A-1Colly) made an addition of ` 3,56,000/- on account of peak of cash in thebooks of account of the assessee in the names of various creditors andbanks etc. as on 31.3.1984 and on pointing out by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax that there was a calculation mistake, theAssessing Officer vide rectificatory order under Section 154 of the Actincreased the addition of ` 3,56,000/- by a sum of ` 55,000/-. Feelingaggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) [for brevity, “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide orderdated 25.3.1991 and dated 28.2.1992 (Annexure A-2 Colly) allowed theappeal and deleted the addition of ` 55,000/-. Being dissatisfied, therevenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide orders dated21.4.1998 and dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure A-3 Colly) dismissed theappeal. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3.Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunalhas wrongly deleted the addition of ` 55,000/- made by the AssessingOfficer under Section 154 of the Act holding that the amount in questionrelated to the amount already declared under the Amnesty Scheme forthe assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and allowed the benefit ofset off in the assessment year 1984-85. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the assesseesupported the order passed by the Tribunal. ITA No. 81 of 2000 5.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not findany merit in the appeal. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of therevenue had held as under:- 3.Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunalhas wrongly deleted the addition of ` 55,000/- made by the AssessingOfficer under Section 154 of the Act holding that the amount in questionrelated to the amount already declared under the Amnesty Scheme forthe assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and allowed the benefit ofset off in the assessment year 1984-85. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the assesseesupported the order passed by the Tribunal. ITA No. 81 of 2000 5.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not findany merit in the appeal. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of therevenue had held as under:- “5.A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunalshows that the addition came to be deleted takingnote of the fact that the assessee had declaredsubstantial amounts under the Amnesty Scheme, i.e.,` 2,40,000/- for assessment year 1976-77 and` 3,50,000/- for assessment year 1977-78 and theaddition of ` 3,56,500/- was not required to beseparately made as the same could be treated tohave come out of the amounts disclosed earlier. Bemeans of the order u/s 154, the AO increased theaddition of ` 3,56,500/- by a sum of ` 55,000/- on theground of a calculation of mistake. 6.In the light of the order of the Tribunal and thesum of ` 3,56,500/- plus ` 55,000/- being lesser thanthe total amount disclosed under the AmnestyScheme, we find no good ground to interfere with theview taken by the CIT(A). We can only state that theld. DR vehemently supported the order passed by theAssessing Officer.” 6.It was recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee haddeclared an amount of ` 2,40,000/- for the assessment year 1976-77and ` 3,50,000/- for the assessment year 1977-78 under the AmnestyScheme. It was also noticed that addition of ` 3,56,500/- was notrequired to be separately made as the same could be taken to have ITA No. 81 of 2000 been included in the amounts disclosed in earlier assessment years. TheIncome Tax Case No. 35 of 1999 under Section 256(2) of the Act filedby the revenue challenging such deletion was dismissed by this Court on9.11.2010. The Tribunal further recorded that the addition of ` 55,000/-also fell within the permissible limit of declaration made by the assesseeunder the Amnesty Scheme for the assessment years 1976-77 and1977-78. In such circumstances, we do not find any error in theapproach of the Tribunal in upholding the deletion of ` 55,000/- in thecurrent year. 7.The finding recorded by the Tribunal was not shown to beerroneous or perverse in any manner which may warrant interference bythis Court. Accordingly, the substantial question of law as reproduced inpara 1 is answered against the revenue. Thus, there is no merit in thisappeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 14, 2015 gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE