The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Narang Udyog

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 & connected cases beingI.T.A. Nos.23 to 27, 67, 118 to 120, 136 to 140, 205, 206, 208,210 to 214, 216, 221, 226 to 229, 237, 238, 259, 315, 471, 500,501, 699, 706 to 708, 718, 719, 725, 729 to 740, 745, 746, 747,749, 750, 786 to 788, 790 to 791 and 894 of 2008 & ITA No.278 and 289 of 2009Date of decision: 28.02.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Narang Udyog. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counselfor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 27, 67, 118to 120, 136 to 140, 205, 206, 208, 210 to 214, 216, 221, 226 to229, 237, 238, 259, 315, 471, 500, 501, 699, 706 to 708, 718,719, 725, 729 to 740, 745, 746, 747, 749, 750, 786 to 788, 790 to791 and 894 of 2008 & ITA No.278, 289 and 370 of 2009, as it isstated by learned counsel for the revenue that all the appealsinvolve common questions. 2. I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 has been preferred by therevenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 14.9.1999 in IT/SS No.64/Chandi/2005 and C.O. 98/Chandi/ 2005 for the block period ending on14.9.1999 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding atpage 68 of the order that the office note dated21.05.2001 which was appended to 158BC orderdated 21.5.2001 and is part of the said order, doesnot constitute a satisfaction note within the parameterof Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inrespect of the person who has borrowed moneythrough the assessee broker who is the searchedperson for the purpose of order U/s 158 BC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? 2.Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding thatthe ACIT Circle, Yamuna Nagar ought to have handedover the seized material and satisfaction note to ITO,Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar without appreciating the factthat the ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar was not havingjurisdiction over the case, as an officer not below therank of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax only iscompetent to pass an order u/s 158 BC/158BD of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and since the ACIT YamunaNagar himself was granted jurisdiction as per orderdated 31.12.2001, there was no necessity to transferthe seized material/satisfaction note to ITO Ward-1? 3.Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding thatthere has been delay in recording of satisfaction priorto issue of notice u/s 158 BD of the Act whereas theTribunal has itself observed that the satisfaction notedated 21.05.2001 referred to in Qus.No.1 above iswithin the period of limitation. And, when the statute has not prescribed any time limitation for issue ofnotice u/s 158BD of the Act? 4.Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in law indeleting the addition of Rs.6,34,334/- ignoringoverwhelming evidence in the shape of Annexure A-1and another documentary evidence in the shape ofstatement of the author of the document establishingthat these transactions relates to the assessee? 5.Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in law in nottaking into cognizance of additional evidence i.e. anexamination report/opinion of laboratory of theGovernment Examiner of Questioned Documents,Shimla regarding the Diary of Dalal & (ii) Affidavit ofDalal dated 27.10.2004, which was adduced duringthe proceedings before the Ld. Tribunal?” 3.Learned counsel for the revenue states that thematter is covered by judgment of this Court passed today in I.T.A.No.22 of 2008CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works, wherein all theabove questions have been answered in favour of the revenueafter hearing the parties and the matter has been remanded tothe Tribunal for fresh decision. 5.Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in law in nottaking into cognizance of additional evidence i.e. anexamination report/opinion of laboratory of theGovernment Examiner of Questioned Documents,Shimla regarding the Diary of Dalal & (ii) Affidavit ofDalal dated 27.10.2004, which was adduced duringthe proceedings before the Ld. Tribunal?” 3.Learned counsel for the revenue states that thematter is covered by judgment of this Court passed today in I.T.A.No.22 of 2008CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works, wherein all theabove questions have been answered in favour of the revenueafter hearing the parties and the matter has been remanded tothe Tribunal for fresh decision. 4. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice tothe assessees, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard tothe fact that the matter is covered and is being remanded to theTribunal. 5. Accordingly, while disposing of these appeals in terms ofabove order, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision onmerits in accordance with law after hearing the concerned parties. 6. Since this order is being passed without notice to theassesses, for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear thatif respondent-assessees are aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 28, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE