9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Counsel and Mr. Varun Isshar, Jr. Standing Counsel for the revenue ORDER Ajay Tewari, J. ( Oral ) [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, challenging an addition of Rs. 2,48,048/-, which as per the Revenue, was unexplained investment for construction which the appellant had carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te D.V.O. as per the Office premises and not per the factory rate as the building constructed at Noida were factory premises of the assessee-appellant? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,48,048/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in the construction of factory building at Noida can be sustained at law the same being based on mere presumpti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was carried out and could not be totaled at in the last year. [5] Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has certain material which may enable the authorities below to decide this issue. [6] In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order qua addition of Rs. 2,48,048/- is set aside and matter is remanded back to the assessing officer to work out the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
