At the instances of the Revenue, the Tribunal was directed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to refer the following questions of law for opinion Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, he Tribunal was justified in deleting a sum of Rs.
Under order dated March 11, 1957 assessment was originally made on a total income of Rs.
M s Nirbheram Daluram hereinafter referred to as the asessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in grains, rice, gunny bags and oil seeds, etc.
In this appeal, by special leave, the question that falls for companysideration relates to the scope of the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while dealing with appeals against orders of the Assessing Officers under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act .
The assessee filed an appeal against the said assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer.
On re assessment in proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act the Income Tax Officer included in the total income a sum of Rs.
2,30,000/ made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the view that in doing so the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the view that in doing so the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction.
2,30,000/ was added by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on new sources of income of items number companysidered by the Income Tax Officer from the point of view of assessability ?
On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal deleted the said addition of Rs.
2,45,000/ referable to ostensible transactions in hundi loans shown by the assessee.
By the impugned judgment dated February 28, 1980, the High Court has answered these questions against the Revenue.
2,45,000/ but he also took numberice of 10 other items of ostensible hundi loans amounting to Rs.
Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had numberjurisdiction or power to the sum of Rs.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the Revenue has filed this appeal.
The matter relates to the assessment year 1956 57.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner number only sustained the said addition of Rs.
2,30,000/ and directed that the total income be enhanced by the sum of Rs.
Whether the sum of Rs.
2,30,000/ freshly added by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?
28,724/ .
2,30,000/ .
2,30,000/ under the facts and circumstances in which he has added the same ?
