TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hu Chopra Respondent Counsel:- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal Suyash Agrawal Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J 1. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, the counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 24.12.2009, passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 4969/Del/2007 by which the appeals filed by the assessee have been partly allowed. The appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law, said to be involved in the appeal:- "1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.07.1992 and assessment order dated 22.11.1991 was set aside and matter was remanded to frame fresh assessment. The assessing Officer, thereafter, by order dated 17.12.1991, assessed the total income of Rs. 93,23,240/- The assessee filed an appeal from the aforesaid order before CIT (A) which has been dismissed on 20.11.1999 in default. The assessee filed an appeal from the aforesaid order before the Tribunal which was allowed by order dated 27.09.2001 and the appeal before CIT (A) was restored. Thereafter the matter was heard on merit by CIT (A) who by order dated 26.09.2007 dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed Income Tax Appeal No. 4969/Del/2007 from the aforesaid order which has been partly allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court dated 20.07.1994. As such no interference is required in this appeal. 6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perused the judgment dated 20.07.1994 passed in Income Tax Reference No. 414 of 1992. The reference was made for the assessment year 1984-85 in the matter of the assessee. This Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal that there was practice in the assessee company for raising temporary finance by raising fake hundies. As the hundies were fake as such neither there was any actual sale nor actual profit was derived by the company on its sale as such addition of the so called profit was not justified. 7. In view of the aforesaid judgment, no interference is required. The appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
