In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 1097 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 23, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh …Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh Randhawa and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has challenged order dated 29.2.2008 (P-7) passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission concluding that the income shown by the assessee-respondent No. 1 as loan from the unsecured creditors stood sufficiently explained as every one of the unsecured creditors had appeared before the Assessing Officer and owed advancement of loan by stating that the income derived by them is from the agricultural land and they owned fertile agricultural land in the States of Punjab and Haryana. 2. We have perused the order and also the statements of the unsecured creditors recorded by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the direction issued by the Settlement Commission on 31.1.2007. It has been specified that the first Assessing Officer (Shri Pardeep C.W.P. No. 1097 of 2009 Kumar) had already recorded the statements of various unsecured creditors who in categorical terms have accepted advancement of loan and also stated that the income derived by them is from agricultural land. The credit worthiness of the unsecured creditors has been accepted by the Settlement Commission and the attempt made by the subsequent Assessing Officer (Shri Anil Sharma) and the report submitted by him stating that the assessee-respondent No. 1 has failed to produce any evidence, has not been accepted being against specific directions issued by the Settlement Commission on 31.1.2007. It is not a case where the assessee-respondent No. 1 has been allowed to go scot-free but he has been saddled with tax liability of Rs. 50 lacs after accepting the partial explanation tendered by him in the wake of the statements made by the unsecured creditors. Moreover, the request of the assessee-respondent No. 1 for waiver of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also rejected but his prayer for immunity from prosecution as well as penalty was accepted in view of the cooperation rendered by the assessee-respondent No. 1 3. Having heard learned counsel we find no jurisdictional error or error in law in the order passed by the Settlement Commission warranting admission. The appreciation of evidence by the Settlement Commission cannot be re-opened merely because another view is possible. We could have admitted the matter had the other view was the only possible view. That position is not available in this case. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 C.W.P. No. 1097 of 2009 (H.S. BHALLA) January 23, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3