9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has filed the present appeal raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A), Chandigarh in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the amount of ₹ 2,40,000/- seized during the course of search as payment towards advance tax whereas the assets ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chandigarh, which order was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') with the following observations: "10. In the present case, there is an indication that order u/s 132(5) was passed retaining cash seized. The assessee filed application in December, 1994 and in March, 1995 after the above order requesting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case cited supra. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).............." The Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue relied upon the case of Raghu Nandan Lal (supra). Further, it is evident from the order of the Tribunal that, besides, the case in hand, two other cases namely: M/S Nand Lal, Labhu Ram, Kharar, and M/s Punjab Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
