The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Rajesh Goel
High Court
17 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Rajesh Goel
Date of order
17 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Rajesh Goel, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The Revenue is in the process ofchallenging order of this Court dated 16.3.2010 andthis matter may be kept pending to await the outcomethereof.” Since no further progress has been reported on behalfof the revenue and the impugned order is only consequential toearlier order of the Tribunal which has...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
The Commissioner of Income Tax.
Vs.
Sh. Rajesh Goel.
I.T.A. No.226 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: 17.1.2011
-----Appellant.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counselfor the Revenue.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
On 28.7.2010, following order was passed:-
“1.This appeal has been preferred by the Revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act”) against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.513/Del/2009 dated 22.4.2009 for the assessment year2001-02.
2. The Assessee is the proprietor of two concerns.During assessment, the Assessee having beenconfronted with correctness of particulars of purchasefrom firms which were bogus, the Assessee offeredadditional income which led to making of additions interms of the statement made. However, theCommissioner of Income Tax invoked the jurisdictionunder Section 263 and directed a fresh assessmenton the ground that addition made was only of Rs.10lac, while bogus purchases were of much higheramount. On appeal by the Assessee, the said order
was set aside. It was observed that the surrenderedamount was finalised in the presence Commissionerof Income Tax and Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax. The said order was upheld by this Courtin order dated 16.3.2010 in I.T.A. No.120 of 2010 inThe Commissioner of Income Taxv. Sh. RajeshGoel.
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue states thatimpugned order in the present case is consequentialto the order of the Tribunal which was upheld by thisCourt on 16.3.2010. The Revenue is in the process ofchallenging order of this Court dated 16.3.2010 andthis matter may be kept pending to await the outcomethereof.”
Since no further progress has been reported on behalfof the revenue and the impugned order is only consequential toearlier order of the Tribunal which has been upheld by this Court,no substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
January 17, 2011ashwani
( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue