TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961? - Held that:- Before Tribunal the assessee specifically raised an issue that this figure of ₹ 7,35,787/- is not traceable and let it be known to him as to wherefrom this figure has come. When we required learned counsel for the appellant to show whether there existed any such figure in any of the document, he fairly admitted that atleast from the record he had seen, he could not lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant : Standing Counsel, A. N. Mahajan, B. Agrawal, D. Awasthi For the Respondent : S. K. Garg, Ashish Bansal ORDER 1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Advocate for appellant and perused the record. 2. The following two questions of law were formulated by this Court while admitting the appeal on 09.07.2009: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantial question of law, as under: 3. Whether there existed any figure like ₹ 7,35,787/-, which formed the basis of discussion by Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 14.02.2002 passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961 ), which was considered in the context of Section 43-B of Act, 1961? 4. Before Tribunal the assessee spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- as provident fund. 6. In view thereof, it is evident that Commissioner of Income Tax while discussing the question of disallowance of ₹ 7,35,787/-, under Section 43-B of Act, 1961, has considered the matter relating to an amount which did not exist at all and before this Court also it could not be shown to have existed. This shows a total non-application of mind on the part of Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
