2000 (7) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, 1999. By this application, the Revenue has pointed out that on ground No. 1b relating to the addition of Rs. 3,74,74,308, there was difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member and in view of the provisions of s. 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the Members should have stated the point or points on which they differed to the President of the Tribunal for hearing on suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Revenue is misconceived. A plain reading of our order reveals that both the members had agreed on the conclusion, but they have given different reasons for the same. Such an order cannot be termed as a dissenting order. It was a concurring order, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of A.N. Seth. The Hon'ble High Court after reproducing s. 5A(7) of the 1922 Act, which is anal....