TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 19-7-2006 - JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has challenged an order dated 20 th December, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA 3/Del/2002 relevant for the assessment year 1993-94. 2. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed its return claiming depreciation of Rs.50,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax imposed a penalty on the assessee against which an appeal was filed by the assessee. 5. In the appeal against the penalty proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) recorded several findings in favour of the assessee, which have been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the appeal, the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order that the Tribunal has considered the findings arrived at by the Commissioner, as mentioned above in paragraph 5 of the order. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that more than five years had gone by between the original assessment and the re-assessment proceedings and it was under these circumstances that the assessee was unable to produce the Managing Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at both by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. 10. The assessee was required to produce the Managing Director of M/s. Western Paques India Ltd. after a gap of five years, which it could not do for reasons beyond its control. 11. We are of the view that under these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
