Skip to content


Geeta Garg Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala (Punjab) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantGeeta Garg
RespondentCommissioner of Income Tax Patiala (Punjab)
Excerpt:
.....versus commissioner of income tax, patiala (punjab) ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice ajay kumar mittal hon'ble mr.justice g.s.sandhawalia present: mr.pankaj jain, advocate, for the appellant. **** ajay kumar mittal, j. cm no.19332-cii of 2012 in ita no.174 of 2012, cm no.20451-cii of 2012 in ita no.185 of 2012 and cm no.20453-cii of 2012 in ita no.186 of 2012 allowed as prayed for. ita no.174 of 2012 (o & m) ::2:: cm no.19333-cii of 2012 in ita no.174 of 2012, cm no.20452-cii of 2012 in ita no.185 of 2012 and cm no.20454-cii of 2012 in ita no.186 of 2012 in view of the averments made in the applications, the delay of 87 days, 85 days and 87 days respectively in refiling of the appeals, is condoned . c.m.applications stand disposed of. ita no.174 of 2012 (o & m) this order.....
Judgment:

ITA No.174 of 2012 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 04, 2012 (1) ITA No.174 of 2012 (O & M) Geeta Garg ....Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Punjab) ...Respondent (2) ITA No.185 of 2012 (O & M) Shama Rani ....Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Punjab) ...Respondent (3) ITA No.186 of 2012 (O & M) Chander Kanta ....Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Punjab) ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

CM No.19332-CII of 2012 in ITA No.174 of 2012, CM No.20451-CII of 2012 in ITA No.185 of 2012 and CM No.20453-CII of 2012 in ITA No.186 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.

ITA No.174 of 2012 (O & M) ::2:: CM No.19333-CII of 2012 in ITA No.174 of 2012, CM No.20452-CII of 2012 in ITA No.185 of 2012 and CM No.20454-CII of 2012 in ITA No.186 of 2012 In view of the averments made in the applications, the delay of 87 days, 85 days and 87 days respectively in refiling of the appeals, is condoned .

C.M.applications stand disposed of.

ITA No.174 of 2012 (O & M) This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.174, 185 and 186 of 2012 as the issues raised in these appeals are identical.

For brevity, the facts are being taken from ITA No.174 of 2012.”

2. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 18th November, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B”.

Bench (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.1256/CHD/2010 for the assessment year 2002-03 claiming the following substantial question of law: “Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, while initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147, 'the onus to prove', the 'reason to believe' is discharged when proceedings are on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind of the assessing officer as defined u/s 2(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?.”.”

2. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that the similar issue in the case of the family member of the assessee namely ITA No.174 of 2012 (O & M) ::3:: Gautam Kumar and others came up for consideration in ITA Nos.98 to 102 of 2012, which were dismissed by this Court on 16th July, 2012.”

3. In view of the above, following the aforesaid decision of this Court in ITA Nos.98 to 102 of 2012 dated 16th July, 2012, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals and accordingly the same are dismissed.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE December 04, 2012 Sukhpreet


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //