Vijay Parkash Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana And Another

Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001Date of Decision: 17.11.2014 Vijay Parkash Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. versus ..Appellant Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Ludhiana and another ..Respondents Income Tax Appeal No.141 of 2001 Ravinder Kumar Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Ludhiana and another .Respondents and Income Tax Appeal No.142 of 2001 Subhash Chander Maheshwari, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. versus ..Appellant Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Ludhiana and another ..Respondents Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present:Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate,with Ms. Divya Suri, Advocateand Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate,for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Income TaxAppeal Nos.140,141 and 142 of 2001 as they require an answerto the same substantial questions of law and lay challenge of thesame order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal. The assessee is before us challenging order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) on the following substantial questions of law:- “ (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holdingthe Block Assessment order as not barred by the time, though having been framed beyond the periodavailable as per law? (ii)Whether the Tribunal was justified in law inrestoring the issues back to the Assessing Officerrather than quashing the assessment order even afterfinding that there was definite lack of opportunity Income Tax Appeal No.140 of 2001 3 given to assessee of being heard, in utter breach ofthe sacred principles of equity and natural justice?(iii)Whether the Tribunal was justified in law inrestoring the addition of Rs.2007300/- back to theAssessing Officer for verification, taking note of thelegal objection of the assessee that it was a disclosedtransaction, in contradiction of its own findings that onmerits the impugned addition was not warranted? Admittedly, question nos. 1 and 2 have beenanswered against the assessee in ITA No.101 of 2001 and are,accordingly, answered against the assessee in terms of order ofeven date passed in ITA No.101 of 2001. Counsel for the appellant submits, with respect to the3[rd] question of law, that as the Tribunal has recorded a primefacie opinion that addition of Rs.20,07,300/- is not warranted, itshould not have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officeron the ground that the assessment order is violative of theprinciples of natural justice. Counsel for the revenue submits that question has been rendered academic, as after the matter was remanded tothe assessing Officer, a fresh assessment order has beenframed making an addition of Rs.20,07,300/- which is subjectmatter of a bunch of other appeals which are pendingadjudication before this Court, namely, ITA Nos. 99, 128, 204, 215, 218 of 2013. We have heard counsel for the parties. The discretionexercised by the Tribunal in remanding the matter cannot befaulted. Even otherwise, as after remand, the matter is onceagain before us, in appeals filed by the revenue, namely, ITANos.194 to 197, 205,206, 214 and 216 of 2001, we desist fromrecording any further opinion on merits, particularly in thebackground of the fact that the Tribunal had deleted thisaddition. The questions of law are, accordingly, answered inthe aforesaid terms and the appeals disposed of accordingly. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE 17.11.2014VK ( B.S.WALIA ) JUDGE