2004 (7) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent was asked to reconcile the opening capital of Rs. 1,53,033.25 with the closing balance as on March 31, 1987. The representative of the assessee/respondent has filed a reconciliation statement, but however, the assessing Officer found the same as erroneous. Since the assessee/respondent has not filed a cash flow statement, the Assessing Officer himself has prepared a cash flow statement for the period from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990 and called upon the assessee/respondent to file his objections, if any. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 2,40,725.37 towards the drawings for personal expenses and found that the source was not satisfactorily explained and the same was brought to assessment under section 69 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notional allowance while showing the depreciated value of the assets in the assets side of the balance-sheet. We have considered the above contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Tribunal. A perusal of the order of the Commissioner discloses that a factual finding is rendered to the effect that the Assessing Officer has committed an error in holding that depreciation should have been considered in the profit and loss account and the net profit alone should have been credited to the capital. It is further held therein that depreciation is a notional allowance given for the wear and tear of the machinery which would not affe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld be decided by this court. A perusal of the substantial question of law clearly discloses that the appellant is aggrieved only with regard to the factual findings rendered by the appellate authorities, much less, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. The scope of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not enable the parties to file an appeal, if they are aggrieved, as against the factual finding rendered by the appellate authorities. The above view is supported by the decision of this court in CIT v. K. Manickam [2002] 258 ITR 175. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law as raised within the ambit of section 260A of the Income-tax Act. We ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X