ITA No.125 of 2000 -1- 388-1 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.125 of 2000 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 appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Varun Isshar, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, challenging addition of 2,48,048/-, which as per Revenue, was unexplained investment for construction which appellant had carried out claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-6 can be sustained at law? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, addition of Rs.2,48,048/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in construction of factory building at Noida can be legally sustained in as much as construction of building was over span of three years whereas addiiton 1 of 3 Downloaded on - 11-03-2020 16:20:40 ITA No.125 of 2000 -2- on account of difference has been made in one assessment year alone? (iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, addition of Rs.2,48,048/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in construction of factory building at Noida can be legally sustained in as much as rate taken by te D.V.O. as per Office premises and not per factory rate as building constructed at Noida were factory premises of assessee-appellant? (iv) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, addition of Rs.2,48,048/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in construction of factory building at Noida can be sustained at law same being based on mere presumptions and conjectures which can not form basis for adjudication? [2] On 27.01.2020, following order was passed:- issue which arises in these two appeals is whether unexplained income could be added in single year of assessement or whether it had to travel back towards relevant years in which construction was done. Adjourned to 04.02.2020. photocopy of this order be placed on file of connected case(s). [3] On 10.02.2020, learned counsel for Revenue stated that issue which had been raised could not be verified by him as record is not available. [4] Today again learned counsel for Revenue states that record is not available. He is not in position to deny that in such case addition would have to be made for period in which construction was carried out and could not be totaled at in last 2 of 3 Downloaded on - 11-03-2020 16:20:41 ITA No.125 of 2000 -3- year. [5] Learned counsel for appellant states that appellant has certain material which may enable authorities below to decide this issue. [6] In these circumstances, appeal is allowed. impugned order qua addition of 2,48,048/- is set aside and matter is remanded back to assessing officer to work out tax liability as per law after considering material which appellant may produce. [7] Since appeal is disposed of, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE March 03, 2020 pankaj baweja 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No 3 of 3 Downloaded on - 11-03-2020 16:20:41 Sarishti Paul v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar And Another