9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of discussion by CIT(A) in its order passed u/s 263 which was considered in the context of Section 43-B of Act, 1961? - Held that:- Before Tribunal the assessee specifically raised an issue that this figure of 7,35,787/- is not traceable and let it be known to him as to wherefrom this figure has come. When we required learned counsel for the appellant to show whether there existed any such fig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shi Kant,JJ. For the Appellant : Standing Counsel, A. N. Mahajan, B. Agrawal, D. Awasthi For the Respondent : S. K. Garg, Ashish Bansal ORDER 1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Advocate for appellant and perused the record. 2. The following two questions of law were formulated by this Court while admitting the appeal on 09.07.2009: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one more substantial question of law, as under: "3. Whether there existed any figure like ₹ 7,35,787/-, which formed the basis of discussion by Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 14.02.2002 passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961"), which was considered in the context of Section 43-B of Act, 1961?" 4. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 7,35,787/- as provident fund. 6. In view thereof, it is evident that Commissioner of Income Tax while discussing the question of disallowance of ₹ 7,35,787/-, under Section 43-B of Act, 1961, has considered the matter relating to an amount which did not exist at all and before this Court also it could not be shown to have existed. This shows a total non-application of mind o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
