9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on drawn by the Tribunal is perverse and bad in law?" we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed resulting in setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the case to the Tribunal to again decide the same afresh on the merits. - - - - - Dated:- 27-1-2005 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.M. Sapre J.- This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order dated August 30, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in I.T.A. No. 475/Ind of 1995. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d investment deleted the addition made. The Revenue therefore, feeling aggrieved by the deletion filed appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal formulated question No. 2 in these words: "(ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,97,222 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment made in the construction of building." However, by the impugned order, the Tribunal answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in these words in para. 11: "Para 11. A propos ground No. (ii) the Revenue has simply relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer whereas from a careful perusal of the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question. The submission of learned counsel for the Revenue was that these expenses cannot be claimed under the head of construction expenses because none of the heads specified against each head, even remotely relates to any construction activity. Learned counsel for the assessee defended the expenses saying that they are capable of being claimed in the current year and hence, are rightly claimed for being added in the previous year amount of Rs. 2,70,21,070.89 so as to make the total of Rs. 3,82,17,358.37. We are afraid this being a question of fact needs to be gone into in the first instance by the Tribunal in appeal. Indeed, the issue has some relevance in deciding the appeal and hence, the same can be decided more appropriately at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
