9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n I.T.A.No.2880/Chny/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made u/s.68 by the Assessing officer when the assessee has not produced the Name, Address & PAN of the so called parties/Commission agents during the assessment proceedings? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made u/s.68 by the Assessing officer when the assessee has not proved the cash deposit but changed its stand that the payments were received from various parties and commission agents when such ledger accounts were not maintained by the assessee?" 2. We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem ['CIT(A)' for brevity]. The CIT(A) called for a remand report, which was submitted by the Assessing Officer and after taking note of the remand report, the assessee was given partial relief and the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,67,11,382/- was deleted and the appeal was allowed in part. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on the ground that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable. Though such was the finding rendered by the Tribunal, before us, the Revenue has raised the aforementioned Substantial Questions of Law, which pertain only to the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee based upon an elaborate remand report filed by the Assessing Officer which has been extracted in the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 31.07.2018. The CIT(A) / the First Appellate Authority has re-examined the entire factual position and granted relief to the assessee to the extent warranted. The assessee was not on appeal as against the disallowed portion and it was only the Revenue which challenged the order before the Tribunal to consider the factual scenario. We find that there is no question of law much less Substantial Question of Law, arising for consideration in this appeal and consequently, the appeal should fail. With regard to the issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal, we refrain from expressin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
