9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant : A. N. Mahajan, Bharat Ji Agrawal ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax department. No one appears for the respondent. 2. The connected Income Tax Appeal No.113 of 2000 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tilak Ram) was dismissed on 10.9.2009 on the ground that quantum of the amount involved is Rs.25,365/- and the tax component is less than Rs.5000/-. 3. This appeal was admitted on all the five substantial questions of law framed by the department. We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi and perused the order of ITAT. 4. We are of the view, that the findings, on which all the five substantial questions of law raised, are pure findings of fact, which do not raise any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and it may be relevant to point out that CIT (A) while deciding the case of assessee for the A.Y. 1986-87 had concluded that Ashwani Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were the proprietors of United Transport Co. and were not the benamidars of the assessee. Same view was taken by him in respect of Central Coal Traders, a proprietary concern owned by Ramesh Kumar. These findings of the CIT (A) stand confirmed by the ITAT Delhi Bench "D" in ITA Nos. 2737 and 4024/Del/91, cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue vide order dated 6.5.1997 copy of which is appearing at pages 118 to 142 of the paper book for A.Y. 1986-87 and relying upon those facts it is to be concluded that these three alleged depositors were income-tax assessees in their own capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT Delhi Bench, D in the case of assessee himself for A.Y. 1986-97 had already concluded that income of United Transport Co. belonged to Ramesh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar and not to the assessee deleted the addition from the hands of the assessee. This ground had been agitated wrongly mentioning that income of M/s United Coal Traders which actually is United Transport Co. As noted above ITAT Delhi Bench D in the case of assessee himself for A.Y. 1986-87 had already concluded that income of United Transport Co. belonged to Ashwani Kumar and not to the assessee. Accordingly there is no justification to interfere in the order of the CIT (A) which stands upheld. Ground fails." 6. In our view the findings quoted as above are pure findings of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
