Sarishti Paul v. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Jalandhar

-1388-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 03.03.2020 Shri Sarishti Paul Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Varun Isshar, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

**** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, challenging an addition of
2,48,048/-, which as per the Revenue, was unexplained investment for construction which the appellant had carried out claiming following substantial questions of law:-
  





  



       

   

  

   



  





  



   



!"#$"#%

 

&  '

   (  

   

 )

  &

 * 



&

)    





    



  &

 (

'

  ) 

   



-2-

 



    



  



  )

   





  



   



!"#$"#%

 

&  '

   (  

   

 )

  &

 * 



&

)    

 

 

  +

)  ,!-!.!

 '  .

 ' 



 ' 

 )



 

  &   

 *

 

 ) ' 



 ''

 (  





  



   



!"#$"#%

 

&  '

   ( 



   

 )

  &

 * 

   



  

 &



  ' ' 

  / 

 



  



/  [2] On 27.01.2020, following order was passed:-
1 



 

 

''

 

  '

     



 

  &  )

 

      (

+ 

  (

 )  

    

  !

/   $"!$!$$!

 '')

  

 '





 



  !"

[3] On 10.02.2020, learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the issue which had been raised could not be verified by him as the record is not available.

[4] Today again learned counsel for the Revenue states that record is not available. He is not in a position to deny that in such a case the addition would have to be made for the period in which construction was carried out and could not be totaled at in the last

-3year.

[5] Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has certain material which may enable the authorities below to decide this issue.

[6] In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order qua addition of
2,48,048/- is set aside and matter is remanded back to the assessing officer to work out the tax liability as per law after considering the material which the appellant may produce.

[7] Since the appeal is disposed of, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE March 03, 2020 '

+ /

/