9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble before the Tribunal. With regard to the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 as pointed out earlier, the CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee. This relief was granted to the assessee based upon an elaborate remand report filed by the AO which has been extracted in the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 31.07.2018 - 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. There is no question of law much less Substantial Question of Law, arising for considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut 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 counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. The assessee is a Spinning Mill, filed their return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration, returning a total income of ₹ 1,73,75,250/- under normal computation and has shown deemed total income of ₹ 3,05,28,343/- under Section 115JB of the Act and claimed refund of ₹ 5,54,620/-. The assessee also declared agricultural income of ₹ 2,07,030/-. The case was selected for sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;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 Act. 5. We have elaborately heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellant / Revenue. Though the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of maintainability and in this regard, referred to the decision of this Court in the case of B.Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT reported in (2018) 407 ITR 0212 (Mad) and decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi Vs. CIT, reported in (1967) 65 ITR 261 and the decision of the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 expressing any opinion on the said issue as in our considered opinion, it is an arguable issue and the Revenue having not raised any Substantial Questions of Law on the said issue, we proposed to leave the said question open. 7. In the result, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed on the ground that no Substantial Questions of Law as framed by the Revenue arises for consideration in this appeal. With regard to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
