IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.537 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Puneet Udyog. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 17.12.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3041/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.24,78,220/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of suppression of production disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed to show the quantity of soap manufactured during the year correctly in its books of accounts to the extent of Rs.24,78,220/-? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the I.T.A. No.537 of 2010 order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.11,04,543/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of freight, octroi and cartage expenses disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the genuiness of the expenditure and the Ld. ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of its own earlier years decisions in assessee’s case against which revenue’s appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court till date? III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.6,10,596/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of sales promotion disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of incurring the expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and the Ld. ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of its own earlier decision dated 08.08.2008 in assessee’s case against which revenue’s appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court till date?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that identical appeal in the case of the assessee was dismissed by this Court on 16.2.2010 being I.T.A. No.337 of 2009 CIT v. M/s Puneet Udyog. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 10, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2