9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y C.I.T.(A-2, Pune) against the Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 20.03.2013 by Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmedngar. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. M. Sharma for the appellant and learned Advocate Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar for the respondent, at the stage of admission. In order to cut short, it can be said that both the learned Advocates have made submissions in support of their respective contentions. 3. The appellant contends that he is a contractor undertaking civil work as a construction contractor. He had declared his income in his returns of income for the assessment year 2010-2011 at Rs. 14,50,480/-. It was selected for scrutiny. After receiving the notice, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of law. 5. The first and the foremost fact to be noted is that the present appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Only after arrival of the conclusion that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, then as per sub-section (3) of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, this Court needs to formulate the said substantial question of law. It is the bounden duty of the appellant approaching this Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act to show the subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered. Reasoned orders have been given as to why they have been considered and why they have not been considered. Again the appeal was preferred by the appellant before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. After giving hearing to the appellant, that appeal has also been partly allowed. Few more expenses were allowed to be shown as expenses, but what has been disallowed is that the parties in whose names the cheques were alleged to be issued by the appellant have deposed on oath that the signature on the back side of the cheques and the rubber stamps were not of their business establishments and they have neither encashed the cheques from the bank, nor received the amount from third parties i.e. to the extent of Rs. 13,10,000/- as it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
