TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the Madras High Court dated 08 th February 2006 whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260 A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") against the order of the Income-tax Tribunal allegedly raising questions of law has been dismissed on the premise that no substantial question of law in fact arose for consideration. The facts leading to the appeal are as under:- 3. The respondent-assessee vide a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1998 purchased certain land at Brindavan Road, Fairlands, Salem for a sum of Rs.4.10 lakhs. During a search of the office and residential premises of Polimer Net Work, certain notes on loose sheets allegedly in the hands of the respondent were found and seized by the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities for such property was much lower than the value which would result if the sale deed had been registered at Rs.34.85 lakhs. The Commissioner accordingly deleted the addition made. An appeal was thereafter preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated 6 th July 2005 held that the notings on the loose pieces of paper on the basis of which the initial suspicion with regard to the under valuation had been raised were vague and could not be relied upon as it appeared that the total area with respect to the sale deeds and that reflected in the loose sheet was discrepant. It was also observed that as per the guidelines for registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stent sworn were taken into consideration along with evidences found at the time of search, would all be liable to be rejected on the basis of one statement in between contradicting the earlier ones which was also explained away as a result of intimidation? 4. The High Court relying heavily on the order of the Commissioner and the Tribunal held that no substantial questions of law had been raised and accordingly dismissed the appeal. It is this situation that the present matter is here before us. 5. Mr. G.N. Vahanvati, the learned Solicitor General has at the very outset raised serious objection to the order of the High Court pointing out that Division Bench had merely plagiarized substantial portions from the order of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
