9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made by the Assessing Officer with regard to the income of the assessee during the said block period falling below the income exigible to income-tax. Both the appeals have been admitted on the following question of law: "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee pursuant to a notice/return submitted under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act for want of any material available against the assessee?" It is not disputed before us that certain documents were unearthed in the search conducted on December 20, 1996, under the provisions of section 132 of the Act in which an agreement to sell pertaining to an agricultural land indicating consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that even if both the cases are taken together in respect of the disputed demand, the demand raised is below Rs. 1.00 lakh and in the context of these admitted facts, learned senior counsel for the respondents has invited attention to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular to the effect that in cases where the tax liability is less than Rs. 1,00,000 the Department should not file any appeal. In this connection our attention has been invited to Asst. CIT v. Aradhana Mills [2002] 30 ITC 446, in which this court has observed that when no explanation was furnished why the Department had filed an appeal when the tax effect was less than the minimum prescribed by the circular, the appeal was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion would be brought on the statute book and rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the return was filed or the income was disclosed after the date of the search and seizure. In the present case, in I.T.A. No. 30 of 2003, he has passed the order on February 23, 1999, while in I.T.A. No. 31 of 2003, the order was passed by him on February 12, 1998. Learned counsel submits that both these dates being anterior to the date of the amendment, at that point of time, the provision contained in section 158BB(1)(ca) were not on the statute book. However, it has frankly been conceded that on the date the Tribunal was considering the matter in appeal, the provision was on the statute book and was applicable retrospectively from July 1, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
