IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.48 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.01.2020 M/s Gheeru Lal Bal Chand Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & anr. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate with Mr. Varun Issar, Advocate for respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1 This appeal has been filed against order of Tribunal setting aside that of Commissioner and upholding assessment made by Assessing Officer. 2 following questions of law have been framed :- (a) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, orders Annexure P-1 and P-3 are legally sustainable ? (b) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, confirmation of regular assessment made is legally sustainable in view of earlier decisions of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal Nos.271 and 240 (ASR)/1992 and I.T.A. No.1014 (ASR)/1990 wherein on similar grounds and on similar facts, I.T.A.T. had held in favour of assessee? (c)Whether in facts and circumstances of case, POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.16 10:33 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.48 of 2000 (O&M) 2 confirmation of assessment made is legally sustainable in absence of specific challenge to correspondence, contracts and affidavits produced on record by assessee-appellant? (d) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, respondents were legally justified in making addition of Rs.2,13,330/- on account of diversion of profits on mere presumptions and sermises without there being any independent evidence on record to corroborate same? 3 brief facts are that appellant had purchased 2991 bales of cotton in year in question. Out of that its case was that 1411 bales were those which were its own direct purchases and on sale of which it had earned profit which it had honestly reported. However, remaining 1580 bales were purchased on behalf of some other persons and appellant had only earned commission thereon while profits had gone to those other persons. On consideration of entire evidence Assessing Officer came to conclusion that assessment had not been able to prove fact that it had purchased cotton on behalf of those other persons and held that it was case of diversion of profits. On re-appreciation of fact Commissioner gave partial relief to appellant but in appeal carried out by Revenue that relief was also declined and order of Assessing Officer was maintained. 4 Learned counsel for revenue has relied upon New Kailash Cotton Factory Vs. Assessing Officer-cum-Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Mansa (Punjab), passed in ITA No.510 of 2006 decided on 21.03.2007, para 3 of same is as follows :- 3. Having heard learned counsel for assessee, we do POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.16 10:33 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.48 of 2000 (O&M) 3 not find any merit in appeal. perusal of concurrent findings recorded by all authorities below show that assessee had not been able to prove on record genuineness of transactions resulting into claim made by him for diverting profits arising out of his speculation business. It was found that there was no proof available either in form of written or oral agreement between parties for purchase and sale of commodities. For purpose of conducting so called business on behalf of 3rd parties, assessee invested its own fund, no Sauda Bahi was maintained recording day-to-day transactions. All purchases and sales were made in account of assessee. It was assessee s own infrastructure which was used in all transactions. These being facts on record, even if there is second view possible on re-appreciation of evidence on record in preference to view taken by Tribunal, we are unable to hold that view expressed by Tribunal was not possible view. findings recorded are based on evidence and could not be regarded as perverse. In appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A of Act, appeal can be entertained only on substantial question of law. No doubt perversity in findings of Tribunal would amount to substantial question of law but learned counsel for assessee has failed to point out any material on record which could impel this Court to hold that view expressed by Tribunal was not at all possible. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in present appeal and same is dismissed. 5 We find that facts are similar in both cases. Resultantly, we are of opinion that questions raised are pure questions of fact and questions of law do not arise. 6 Appeal stands dismissed. POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.16 10:33 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.48 of 2000 (O&M) 4 7 Since main case has been decided, pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE January 13, 2020 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.16 10:33 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Gheeru Lal Bal Chand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar & anr