9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIN., MADAN B. LOKUR JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.K. JAIN J.-This is an appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The challenge is to the order, dated May 31,2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), in I.T.A. No. 4524/Delhi of 1997, pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94. According to the Revenue, the said order involves the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without giving its own finding? (b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of Rs. 1,66,000. Thus, treating the balance amount of Rs. 1,67,225 as unexplained, the Assessing Officer added the amount to the total income of the assessee. Besides, on the basis of a slip, seized during the search, on which a sale of Rs. 93,387 as made on April 22, 1993, was recorded, the Assessing Officer estimated the total turnover for the relevant period at five times the total sales shown by the assessee. The gross profit rate was estimated at 15 per cent. in place of 13.49 per cent, declared by the assessee. Accordingly, estimating the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 90,71,830 a gross profit of Rs. 13,60,774 was worked out. Since the assessee had shown the gross profit at Rs. 2,44,807, the balance amount of Rs. 11,15,96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by any document seized during the course of the search. Hence, the present appeal. We have heard Ms. Premlata Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to record its independent finding on the trading addition. The submission is that it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to record its own reasons for dismissing the Revenue's appeal and failure to do so has vitiated its order. In support of the proposition that every fact for and against the assessee must be considered and a finding on the question involved should be clearly given by the Tribunal, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) it is of general public importance; or (ii) it directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties; or (iii) it is an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court; or (iv) is not free from difficulty; and (v) it calls for discussion for alternative views. Applying the aforementioned broad principles to the facts in hand, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises from the order of the Tribunal. Though it does appear that the Tribunal has not specifically recorded its own findings on the issues raised but from the order it is clear that it has endorsed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). As noted supra, the Commissioner had re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
