IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 598 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ........Appellant vs. Ashok Kumar Dhir .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Jyoti, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 25.9.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' Chandigarh in ITA No. 787/CHD/2008 for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue has sought the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,15,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the capital account. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,49,071/- assessed in assessee's hand on account of interest on unexplained capital investment.” The assessee is said to have introduced a sum of Rs. 13,15,000/- in the names of 5 persons which the assessing officer found to I.T.A. No. 598 of 2010(O&M) 2 be income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In its order dated 24.12.2007, the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal found that all the alleged five partners are filing their returns of income in Delhi. Filing of return at Delhi showed that they were partners. The said persons who appeared before the Assessing Officer and their statements were recorded. It was thus found that the basis of addition of Rs. 13.15 lacs made by the Assessing Officer in the name of five persons as investment from the undisclosed sources is not sustainable. Consequently, the interest thereon was found to be unjustified and deleted. Such order was affirmed by the Tribunal in impugned order dated 25.9.2009 on the basis of Varinder Singh's case, subject matter of ITA No.876 of 2010 before this Court. The Commissioner has recorded findings of fact that the five persons were the genuine partners, in view of the fact that all such persons have filed their income tax returns. The statements of five persons were also recorded who were assessee at Delhi. Such finding of fact does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of Varinder Singh's case which have been affirmed by this Court in ITA No. 876 of 2010 decided today vide a separate order. The first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in view of the order of even date whereas the second question of law is consequential to the first substantial question, even the said question does not arises for consideration. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) 08.12.2011 JUDGE reena