9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counter sales to the extent of Rs. 1.33 crores which is inclusive of sale of Rs. 30 lacs. Such finding is a finding of fact which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. In favour of assessee. - ITA No. 54 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-5-2013 - Hemant Gupta And Ritu Bahri, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Adv For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh on 25.09.2012 in respect of the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding the order of the CIT(A) ignoring the violation of Rule 46A(2) by CIT(A), as the CIT(A) did not send the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer while sending the letter dated 08.07.2011 to seek the comment of Assessing Officer, instead CIT (A) pointed out two specific issues without forwarding the additional evidence where for the first time cash deposits of CC account was attempted to be explained in the form of proceeds from the counter sales? v) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the finding recorded by the assessing officer in para 5 of the assessment order dated 13.12.2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence, as the assessee for the first instance attempted to explain the deposit before CIT(A)? viii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) ignoring that law of natural justice has not been followed as Assessing Officer has not been given the opportunity of being heard that in which one of the four criteria laid down under Rule 46A(2) the assessee's case fall, so that Revenue being effected party in the instant case may be able to rebut the arguments taken by the appellant before the CIT(A)? The assessee filed its return on 08.10.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 23,69,300/-. The return was taken up for assessment in terms of Section 143(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee from HDFC Bank certifying that the assessee had no Saving Account, was also sent to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer did not offer any comments on the specific issue raised but relied upon the importance of information received by the Assessing Officer through AIR in support of addition made. Learned Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has provided opportunity to the Assessing Officer before admitting the additional evidence, therefore, the argument raised that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to Rule 46A (2) of the Rules, is not tenable. Though the revenue has claimed large number of questions as substantial questions of law for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
