2011 (1) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t.   Mr. K.K. Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.   ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.   1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 30.11.2004 in I.T.A. No.958/Chandi/96 claiming following substantial question of law:-   "i) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wn presumption is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?   iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the authorities below in acting on its own presumption is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?"   2. The Assessing Officer made assessment in respect of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.2.1991. Thereafter, notice dated 15.2.1993 was issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he present case was separated.   3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that in the present case, assessment had already been made under Section 143(3) of the Act and reassessment was initiated without sanction under Section 151 of the Act, which was not permissible. The Tribunal itself upheld the view of the CIT(A) in case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X