9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant-revenue. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . - These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.707/Chandi/2006 and ITA No.706/Chandi/2006. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter-related and arises from the common order of the Tribunal, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience facts are being extracted from ITA No.487 of 2007. 3. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who vide order dated 2.3.2007 passed in ITA No.707/Chandi/2006 while deleting the addition of Rs.14,95,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, observed as under: "The only issue that survives for our consideration is as to whether at least the addition of Rs.10 lacs offered by the assessee for taxation to buy peace of mind is required to be sustained out of the addition of Rs.14,95,000/-. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, the terms of surrender, we are of the considered view that no addition is justified on the basis of surrender made by deceased assessee's son. In this case, the nature of transactions was not known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge, the addition of Rs.10 lacs is also not justified in this case. We accordingly delete entire addition of Rs.14,95,000/- and allow the appeal of the assessee. The decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT, Patiala (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, penalty had been imposed as agreed by the assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an order based on the agreement cannot give rise to grievance and the same cannot be agitated in an appeal. In the present case, the addition of Rs.14,95,000/- is based upon the statement of Shri Jatinder Kumar Prop. of M/s Goyal Industries. The terms of surrender were not accepted by the Assessing Officer in regard to offer of Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not enough material on the record to sustain the addition. In the case in hand, the addition has been made on the basis of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Prop. M/s Jatindra Udyog Industires whereby the terms of surrender were not accepted by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court, in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra) the addition on the basis of said statement is not sustainable. If the Department does not allow the assessee to buy peace of mind, why should the assessee be bound by the offer to pay tax. The statement of surrender has got to be accepted in toto or it has got to be ignored. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. No question of law arises for the determination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
