9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") seeks mandamus to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") to refer the following question of law to this Court for its opinion:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the assessee had disclosed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for the assessment year 1976-77 and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for the assessment year 1977-78 under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985. Against the order of the CIT (A), the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the department. The petition under Section 256(1) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closure petition read, "It is understood that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was available with the firm/partners as on 31.3.1977 and in subsequent years till today." The amounts referred to supra have been assessed as per the disclosure of cash available with the appellant, by the learned ACIT for the asstt. year 1976-77 vide order dated 31.5.1988, and for the asstt. year 1977-78 vide order dated 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h had been recorded by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal, as noticed above, were not shown to be perverse in any manner. The Tribunal while deciding the reference filed by the revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act noticed that the issue had been decided on appreciation of evidence and no proposition of law was involved. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, no error could be said to have ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
