IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-238-2014 Date of decision:- 10.04.2015 Raj Kumar Wadhwa (D) through L.R Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for appellant. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for respondent. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL) This is appeal against order of Tribunal dated 30.09.2013 in respect of assessment year 2007-08. One of main issues that arose before Tribunal was issue of fact. appellant claimed deduction in respect of amounts allegedly paid to sub-brokers/sub-agents. This was disbelieved by Assessing Officer and by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. question of fact, therefore, is whether assessee had in fact made payment to these sub-agents/sub-brokers. If so, whether said payments were genuine or not. If they were, assessee would be entitled to deduction. 3. appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law:- Whether order of ITAT is perverse and unreasonable? 4. Assessment orders had been passed also in respect of other assessment years. assessee died on 21.07.2013 i.e. during pendency of appeal before Tribunal. impugned order is dated 30.09.2013. appeal, is, therefore, filed by his legal representative. 5. These issues had also arisen in respect of other assessment years. However, for each assessment year, it would be question of fact. Even assuming that it has been rightly found in respect of other assessment years that payments to 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2020 17:41:30 ::: ITA No. 238 of 2014 [2] alleged sub-agents were not genuine and, therefore, deductions could not be allowed, finding would not necessarily apply to other assessment years. By impugned order, Tribunal has merely quoted in extenso its order passed in appeals in respect of assessment years 2006-07. This approach is totally incorrect. Tribunal would also have to consider facts pertaining to assessment year in question namely 2007-08. Having failed to consider vital issues, order is liable to be set aside as being perverse. 6. In circumstances, appeal is allowed. impugned order dated 30.09.2013 is set aside and matter is remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. (S.J.VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 10.04.2015 shivani 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2020 17:41:30 ::: Raj Kumar Wadhwa (D) through L.R v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala