TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (7) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the AAC. 2. It is contended before me that the order of the ITO is contradictory because in para 2(v) he says that the audited accounts are not filed and in para 2 itself he says that the accounts are audited. It seems that the audited accounts were not filed along with the return but they were duly filed before him when the return was being processed for assessment. It is contended before me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... direct case law on this issue, the light is thrown by the judgment of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Murlidhar Mathura Prasad 1978 CTR (All) 410 : (1979) 118 ITR 392 (All) which is a case relating to the provisions of s. 184(7) and the decision of the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench holding camp at Jaipur in ITA No. 1427/JP/1980 as reported in 1981 Tax World, s. 4. page 194.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the purchases are made in a similar manner. I, therefore, accept the assessee's claim and delete the disallowance. 6. The next ground is regarding disallowances of Rs. 1000 out of miscellaneous expenses. The ITO disallowed Rs. 3000 on the ground that a sum of Rs. 2,578 was spent on repairs of sanitary pipes and electric fittings. The AAC reduced it to Rs. 1,000. It is contended before me that ....