TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the larger amount of ₹ 2.26 crores by the asseesse’s employer i.e. Mr. Sunil Aggarwal and as such no question of law therefore arises because that amount was brought to tax. As far as the other sum of ₹ 41 lakhs is concerned, we notice that the Revenue does not appear to have even preferred an appeal before this Court against the order of the ITAT made at the hands of Mr. Sunil Aggarwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d along with ITA 224/2003 and certain other connected appeals. That appeal by the Revenue was dismissed by the order dated 02.11.2015. The facts are that one Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, engaged in the business of plastic raw material and carrying on a commercial activity under two proprietorship concerns M/s Polychem Traders and M/s Petrochem Overseas (India), was subjected to search and seizure operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal set aside the amounts brought to tax. The present assessee was assessed on protective basis, on the footing that in the event of Mr. Sunil Aggarwal s assessment being set aside, his residuary liability could be pursued. The ITAT while dismissing ITA 224/2003, this Court observed as follows: 9. In appeal filed before the ITAT, there was a concurrent view of the two Members compris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs was not justified. In the light of the above, it is quite evident that the sum of ₹ 86 lakhs, though seized from the present assessee was surrendered, offered and accepted as part of the larger amount of ₹ 2.26 crores by the asseesse s employer i.e. Mr. Sunil Aggarwal and as such no question of law therefore arises because that amount was brought to tax. As far as the other sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
