I.T.A. No. 375 of 2007 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 375 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..........Appellant Versus M/s Giani Ram & Company, Liquour Contractor, ..........Respondent Meham, District Rohtak CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench, 'SMC-II' New Delhi in ITA No. 2037/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1995-96, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that the appeal filed by the revenue is incompetent as the revenue cannot be treated as aggrieved from the order of the Ld. CIT (A)? (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law in not adjudicating upon any of the specific grounds taken by the revenue before it? I.T.A. No. 375 of 2007 (O&M) (2) 2. The Assessee is a liquor licencee. The Assessing Officer treated liability towards licence fee payable by the assessee to be income from undisclosed sources. 3. However, out of the said income, deduction was allowed under Section 43B of the Act on account of licence fee paid to the Excise Department. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating and declaring income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and also in allowing the deduction under Section 43B of the Act. 4. The revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal submitting that the issue of admissibility of deduction was not before the CIT(A). 5. The Tribunal held that CIT(A) having dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment, the revenue cannot be held to be aggrieved by the order of CIT(A). 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that since the CIT(A) dealt with the issue of admissibility of the deduction, the revenue was aggrieved by the order of CIT(A). 7. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The CIT(A) having upheld the order of assessment and not interfered with any liability under the order of assessment, the Tribunal was justified in observing that revenue cannot be treated to be aggrieved party. 8. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 16, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No I.T.A. No. 375 of 2007 (O&M) (3)