IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.124 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.01.2020 M/s Grewal Electric Corporation Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh & anr. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for respondents. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1 This appeal has been filed against order of Tribunal upholding addition of Rs.2,72,787/- for assessment year 1990- 1991. 2. During course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed substantial difference between closing balance in account of partners/ex-partners as on 31.03.1989 amounting to Rs.3,51,405/-. Assessee was asked to explain difference and it filed reply stating that in previous six years it was not maintaining complete books of accounts and had been filing returns on estimate basis by applying flat rate on gross receipts. For year under reference it was submitted that profit and loss account and balance sheet were filed but books were not produced and flat rate of 10% was once again POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.23 10:08 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.124 of 2000 (O&M) 2 applied which Assessee agreed to resulting in addition of Rs.84,730/-. Further plea was that 'difference' represented income of preceeding assessment year not disclosed in those years but introduced in books of accounts as on 01.04.1989. Further plea was that these amounts could not be subjected to tax either in assessment year 1990-1991 or in preceeding Assessment Year since sum brought into books of accounts and credited in names of different partners/ex-partners did not have any attributes of income. alternative submission was that in case amount of Rs.3,51,405/- was to be treated as income then Assessee may be permitted to set off as allowed in respect of intangible addition made in earlier years. 3. Assessing Officer considered this matter and declined both prayers holding that first argument that amount represented income of previous years would not hold water because all partners had equal share and if this was so then equal amount would have been credited into their accounts. 4. As regards set off Assessing Officer found that set off had been claimed for this amount in 01.04.1989 and therefore disallowed prayer for setting off amount under intangibles of previous years. In appeal, Commissioner Income Tax allowed set off to tune of Rs.78,618/- in respect of intangible additions pertaining to year 1988-1989 but confirmed remaining addition of Rs.2,72,787/-. In second appeal Tribunal also held that source of this amount had not been proved and dismissed appeal. 5. In our considered opinion, no fault can be found with this finding of fact. Question of law does not arise. POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.23 10:08 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.124 of 2000 (O&M) 3 6. Appeal stands dismissed. 7. Since main case has been decided, pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE January 14, 2020 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2020.01.23 10:08 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Grewal Electric Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh & anr