IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 & connected cases being I.T.A. Nos.23 to 27, 67, 118 to 120, 136 to 140, 205, 206, 208, 210 to 214, 216, 221, 226 to 229, 237, 238, 259, 315, 471, 500, 501, 699, 706 to 708, 718, 719, 725, 729 to 740, 745, 746, 747, 749, 750, 786 to 788, 790 to 791 and 894 of 2008 & ITA No.278 and 289 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.02.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Narang Udyog. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 27, 67, 118 to 120, 136 to 140, 205, 206, 208, 210 to 214, 216, 221, 226 to 229, 237, 238, 259, 315, 471, 500, 501, 699, 706 to 708, 718, 719, 725, 729 to 740, 745, 746, 747, 749, 750, 786 to 788, 790 to 791 and 894 of 2008 & ITA No.278, 289 and 370 of 2009, as it is stated by learned counsel for the revenue that all the appeals involve common questions. 2. I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 14.9.1999 in IT/SS No.64/Chandi/ 2005 and C.O. 98/Chandi/ 2005 for the block period ending on 14.9.1999 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding at page 68 of the order that the office note dated 21.05.2001 which was appended to 158BC order dated 21.5.2001 and is part of the said order, does not constitute a satisfaction note within the parameter of Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the person who has borrowed money through the assessee broker who is the searched person for the purpose of order U/s 158 BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding that the ACIT Circle, Yamuna Nagar ought to have handed over the seized material and satisfaction note to ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar without appreciating the fact that the ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar was not having jurisdiction over the case, as an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax only is competent to pass an order u/s 158 BC/158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and since the ACIT Yamuna Nagar himself was granted jurisdiction as per order dated 31.12.2001, there was no necessity to transfer the seized material/satisfaction note to ITO Ward-1? 3. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in holding that there has been delay in recording of satisfaction prior to issue of notice u/s 158 BD of the Act whereas the Tribunal has itself observed that the satisfaction note dated 21.05.2001 referred to in Qus.No.1 above is within the period of limitation. And, when the statute 2 I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 has not prescribed any time limitation for issue of notice u/s 158BD of the Act? 4. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.6,34,334/- ignoring overwhelming evidence in the shape of Annexure A-1 and another documentary evidence in the shape of statement of the author of the document establishing that these transactions relates to the assessee? 5. Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in law in not taking into cognizance of additional evidence i.e. an examination report/opinion of laboratory of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla regarding the Diary of Dalal & (ii) Affidavit of Dalal dated 27.10.2004, which was adduced during the proceedings before the Ld. Tribunal?” 3. Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court passed today in I.T.A. No.22 of 2008 CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works, wherein all the above questions have been answered in favour of the revenue after hearing the parties and the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision. 4. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the assessees, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard to the fact that the matter is covered and is being remanded to the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly, while disposing of these appeals in terms of above order, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing the concerned parties. 3 I.T.A. No.370 of 2009 6. Since this order is being passed without notice to the assesses, for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that if respondent-assessees are aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 28, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4