9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been filed under the provisions of section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue. As, he subject-matter of both the reference applications are same, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had refused to make reference of any of the questions sought to be referred to the High Court vide its order dated January 28, 1999. 2. A re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal was justified in law in altogether ignoring the circumstantial evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 60,000 made on account of undeclared payments made for the purchase of immovable property ?" 3. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated January 28, 1999, has refused to refer both the questions. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that pursuant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the rival submissions of the parties and find that the Assessing Officer had made additions of Rs. 1,55,000 and Rs. 60,000 on account of investment of money for purchase of immovable property. Both the additions were deleted by the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeals against the order of block assessment under section 158BB on the ground that there was no material available with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made only on the basis of incriminating document/material collected and assessed during the course of search. The various Benches of the Tribunal have followed this principle, thus the issue sought to be referred cannot be treated as referable as it had already been settled by the various Benches of the Tribunal. 7. We have gone through the provisions of section 158BB of the Income- tax Act an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
