Income Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ---- Income Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2008 Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Hazari Lal --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income tax Patiala --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ---- PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Central Govt. Standing counsel for the respondent-Revenue. ---- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’”) has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 18/CHANDI/2001, relating to block period from 1.4.1988 to 22.9.1998 The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law for determination by this Court: Income Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2008 2 1- Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable in making an estimation of addition u/s 158B(b) by the multiplication of receipts being dehors the material available? 2- Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- being contrary to the modus operandi and the nature of transactions carried on by the assessee? 3- Whether the assessee be granted the benefit of telescoping of the additions sustained in the unexplained income? In brief, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business of commission agency for purchase and sale of vehicles and having the interest limited to the extent of commission. On 22.9.1998, a search operation was carried on the residential premises of the assessee under Section 132(1) of the Act, and pursuant thereto a notice under Section 158BC was served on him. Assessment was framed vide order dated 29.9.2000, Annexure A-1, but while framing assessment the assessing authority made additions on various counts, but the assessee disputed only the addition on account of estimation of income for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 (up to 22.9.1998) and regarding the adhoc addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- . Aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-1, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the assessing officer vide order dated 27.3.2001, Annexure A-2. Income Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2008 3 The assessee still dissatisfied assailed the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal vide order under appeal sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- only. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is, whether the addition which has been made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained investment in miscellaneous items amounting to Rs. 3,18,000/- and affirmed by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal, is valid or not. The assessing officer had made this addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- on the ground that in the seized documents in the 3rd column therein various miscellaneous items like Rs. 40,000/- in Indira Vikas Patras etc. had been written, the total of which was Rs. 3,18,000/- and the reply furnished by the assessee was not satisfactory which led to addition of this amount in the undisclosed income. The Tribunal while rejecting the explanation of the assessee had recorded as under: “With respect to addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- also, we find that no specific explanation has been furnished before the lower authorities. The assessee has not denied the relevance of the amounts in question and, thus, the onus was on the assessee to offer credible explanation in this regard. The explanations furnished by the assessee on this count have not been found to be satisfactory and, thus, the addition has been rightly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).” Income Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2008 4 Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out that the findings concurrently recorded by the assessing officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal while sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,18,000/- was erroneous or perverse in any manner. Only an effort was made by the counsel for re-appreciation of evidence by this Court which is not within the ambit of Section 260A of the Act. As noticed earlier, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted by any of the authorities below. The Tribunal has taken a plausible view. In view of the above no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) November 8, 2010 JUDGE *rkmalik*