9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Chennai, questioning the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated July 15, 2009 passed in IT (SS) A. No. 63/Mds/2008. 2. The substantial question of law, on which the appeal is filed is as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verify the figures returned in Form 2B and arrive at the correct undisclosed income. It was noticed that after the search on January 22, 2003, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2002-03 only on March 12, 2004 disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,68,90,172. After giving credit for T.D.S. at Rs. 17,89,147, for the advance tax at Rs. 16,15,000 and for self-assessment tax at Rs. 29,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That order was taken again on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue and the same was rejected. 6. Mr. J. Nareshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, would submit that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee has filed its return only after the search, the provision of section 158BB(1)(ca) would alone apply and the provision of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not inclined to accept the said submission, as the very same judgment was also considered by the Division Bench in A. R. Enterprises' case [2005] 274 ITR 110. For the above conclusion, the Division Bench has also relied upon the earlier judgments of the Guwahati High Court and the Supreme Court. We find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the other Division Bench. 10. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
