2011 (1) TMI 528 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - During assessment, the Assessee offered additional income which led to making of additions in terms of the statement made - However, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 and directed a fresh assessment on the ground that addition made was only of Rs.10 lac, while bogus purchases were of much higher amount - the surrendered amount was finalised in the presence Commissioner of Income Tax and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax - As per the case of Sh. Rajesh Goel v. The Commissioner of Income Tax 2010 -TMI - 75644 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT , the matter is decided against of revenue - Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02.
2. Jurisdiction invoked under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh assessment due to additions made on bogus purchases.
3. Appeal by Assessee against the order of fresh assessment.
4. Challenge by Revenue regarding the order of the Tribunal upheld by the High Court on a previous date.
5. Determination of whether a substantial question of law arises based on the progress of the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02. The Assessee, being the proprietor of two concerns, offered additional income during assessment due to confrontations regarding the correctness of purchase particulars from firms identified as bogus. The Commissioner of Income Tax intervened under Section 263, directing a fresh assessment as the additions made were deemed inadequate compared to the actual amount involved in the bogus purchases. The Assessee appealed this decision, citing finalization of the surrendered amount in the presence of tax authorities. This appeal was successful, with the order being set aside and upheld by the High Court in a previous case.

2. The Revenue argued that the impugned order in the current case is consequential to the Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court in the previous matter. The Revenue expressed intent to challenge the High Court's previous order, leading to a request to keep the current case pending until the outcome of the challenge is determined. However, as no further progress was reported by the Revenue and the impugned order was merely a consequence of the earlier upheld decision, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of new legal issues or developments necessitating a different outcome.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, the arguments presented by the parties involved, and the Court's rationale for dismissing the appeal based on the lack of substantial legal questions arising from the case's progression.