Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the question of addition of any amount by way of undisclosed income to the AO for decision in the light of the findings and directions given by the Tribunal vide its order, dt. 7th June, 1989, in ITA Nos. 401 to 403/Jp/1987 in the case of H.C. Bader for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench

CIT vs. Nirmal Kumar Duggar

Sections 256(2)

Asst. Year 1973-74

Y.R. Meena & Sunil Kumar Garg, JJ.

IT Ref. Appln. No. 67 of 1994

24th January, 2003

Counsel Appeared

J.K. Singhi, for the Revenue : J.K. Ranka, for the Assessee

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law to be referred to this Court : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the question of addition of any amount by way of undisclosed income to the AO for decision in the light of the findings and directions given by the Tribunal vide its order, dt. 7th June, 1989, in ITA Nos. 401 to 403/Jp/1987 in the case of H.C. Bader for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75?”

3. The admitted facts of the case are that for the asst. yr. 1973-74, an assessment order was made on 7th Feb., 1976. Thereafter the assessment order was reopened under s. 147(a) r/w s. 148 of the IT Act and order has been passed on 6th March, 1986. That order was challenged before the Dy. CIT(A). The Dy. CIT(A) set aside the assessment with the direction to reframe the assessment. Fresh assessment was again made by the ITO on 15th March, 1991. In the meanwhile, the set aside order was challenged by the Department before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the Dy. CIT(A). In compliance of directions of Dy. CIT(A), when third assessment order has been made in 1991, for the asst. yr. 1973-74. Now no justification to interfere in the order of the Tribunal, which has confirmed the order of Dy. CIT(A) before 1991 and even consequential order has been passed with is also in challenge.

4. Considering these facts and the reasons given by the Tribunal, confirming the view taken by the Dy. CIT(A), no referable question does arise. The reference application is accordingly disposed of.

[Citation : 270 ITR 514]

Malcare WordPress Security