2009 (11) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JUDGMENT Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income-Tax) Appeals)-IV, Bangalore which has been affirmed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA 608/Bang/2002 dated 14.9.2004 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. The assessee for the assessment year 1998-97 filed return of income. The same was processed under Sec. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und fault with. The order of the Commissioner dated 7.2.2002 was questioned before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal by the revenue. The tribunal has also confirmed the order of the Commissioner. Challenging the concurrent findings, present appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that a sum of ₹ 75 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Assessing officer would have been justified in treating the said amount as an income in the hands of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. When the assessee was not aware of M/s Blue Mountain Food Products Ltd. treating the transaction as written off behind its back, no court can find fault with the return filed by the assessee. Therefore, whether the amount received as advance for supply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X