COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHRI VIBHU TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the common order dated 6 th March, 2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal". Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since facts and also issues in both the appeals are common.

(2.) THE assessees along with other family members are the promoters of Paper Products Limited (for short "PPL"). THEy entered into an agreement dated 16th July, 1999 with M/s.Royal Packaging Industries Van Leer, N.V. Netherlands (for short "M/s.RPIVL"). As per the agreement, the assessees along with other members of the promoters family were restrained for a period of 10 years from entering into any business that is same or similar to that of the business of PPL in India and at all such places where PPL has manufacturing presence or export boards or carries any trading activity. THE assessees had received a sum of Rs.7.40 crores in consideration of said agreement from M/s.RPIVL. In the income tax return filed for the assessment year 2000-2001, the assessee, Shravan Talwar, showed income of Rs.4.26 crores and assessee, Vibhu Talwar, Rs.4.36 crores.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Revenue tried to justify the order of the Assessing Officer by taking us through various items as noted by the Assessing Officer to be missing in the report of the M/s.Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. Our attention was also drawn to the table showing comparison of the items mentioned in the order of the Assessing Officer and in the report of M/s.Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. Comparison was sought to be demonstrated with regard to various items to bring home the point that all the items which were found to be missing by the Assessing Officer were specifically not mentioned in the report of M/s.Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee stated that the report of M/s.Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. covered all the items which were alleged to be missing by the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that in any case, this was nowhere submitted by the Revenue before the CIT(A) and also the Tribunal and thus this question could not be raised at this stage before this Court.