IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.226 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Rajesh Goel. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. On 28.7.2010, following order was passed:- “1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.513/ Del/2009 dated 22.4.2009 for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The Assessee is the proprietor of two concerns. During assessment, the Assessee having been confronted with correctness of particulars of purchase from firms which were bogus, 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 under Section 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. On appeal by the Assessee, the said order I.T.A. No.226 of 2010 was set aside. It was observed that the surrendered amount was finalised in the presence Commissioner of Income Tax and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The said order was upheld by this Court in order dated 16.3.2010 in I.T.A. No.120 of 2010 in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sh. Rajesh Goel. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that impugned order in the present case is consequential to the order of the Tribunal which was upheld by this Court on 16.3.2010. The Revenue is in the process of challenging order of this Court dated 16.3.2010 and this matter may be kept pending to await the outcome thereof.” Since no further progress has been reported on behalf of the revenue and the impugned order is only consequential to earlier order of the Tribunal which has been upheld by this Court, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 17, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2