9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sharma for the Respondent. P.C: 1. This appeal of the assessee challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench at Mumbai, dated 2532015, for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee's return showed total loss of Rs. 77,01,919/. That was processed and an order was made on 28122011, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,02,16,950/. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and which are proposed by the assessee at page 19 of the paperbook. 4. After having heard Mr. Bhanage at great length and with his assistance perusing the order under appeal, we do not agree with him. The Tribunal has extensively referred to the entities and the details in relation thereto provided by the assessee. It concurred with the First Appellate Authority that the burden on the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would enable us to entertain this appeal. The concurrent findings of fact, therefore, are based on appreciation and appraisal of the evidence before the authorities. We cannot take a different view. All the more, when there are no errors of law apparent on the face of the record, particularly in understanding the ambit and scope of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
