I.T.A. No. 357 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 357 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 22.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ..........Appellant Versus M/s N.W.W., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abohar ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mrs. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 27.11.2008 passed in ITA No. 109(ASR)/2008 (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bhatinda Vs. M/s N.W.W., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Abhor), for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (i) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the department is under obligation to accept any amount of surrender income which is not based on the documents found in the survey u/s 133A.” (ii)“On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Ld. ITAT is justified in not giving any finding on the issue of unrecorded sales when the CIT (Appeals) I.T.A. No. 357 of 2009 (2) order is not a speaking order on this issue, particularly as how returned income of Rs. 2,18,162/- is sufficient to cover profit and initial investment of the unrecorded sales of Rs.38,36,534/-”. 2. A survey was conducted under Section133A of the Act on 4.12.2003 at the premises of the assessee. In pursuance thereof, the assessee made a surrender with condition that their will be no penalty or prosecution. It has been found by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal that the surrender was accepted. However, the Assessing Officer added taxable income over and above the surrendered amount, which was deleted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal is against the record and there was no acceptance of the surrender and the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition, over and above the surrendered income. 5. We are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the department had accepted the surrendered income and if the finding is against the record, the remedy of the appellant is to apply for rectification and not by way of this appeal. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 22, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No I.T.A. No. 357 of 2009 (3)