2010 (5) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng M.A No. 240/Del./05, filed by the Revenue, seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 03/08/2001, in ITA No. 1652/Del/1995, was dismissed. 2. The respondent/assessee was an employee of G.E.C. Turbine Generators India Ltd. (GECATGL) working as Assistant in Mechanical Commissioning at its Rihand site. For the assessment year- 1990-91, the assessee filed the return, declaring income of about Rs. 15,90,942/-. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that a search under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, hereinafter refer to as "the Act" had been conducted at the business premises of the company in which the assessee was employed. He found that the evidence seized during the search established that the salary ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f tax perquisites, claiming that the order of the Tribunal was perverse and was a non-speaking order. It was contended before this Court that the facts of the cases, relied upon by the Tribunal, were distinguishable. It was, however, admitted before this Court that no such plea had been raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was, therefore, dismissed vide order dated December 15, 2003 holding that the view of the Tribunal on a similar issue having been accepted by the Revenue in respect of the one of the issues, no question of law survived for the consideration of this Court. 6. M.A.No. 240/Del/05 was, thereafter, filed by the Revenue stating therein that the assessee himself had disclosed tax perquisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent case, the Tribunal did not find any apparent error in the order passed by it on 03rd August, 2001. Departmental representative having conceded before the Tribunal that the case of the assessee was identical to that of other employees whose case was followed by the CIT(A) for allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to examine the facts of the case of the assessee and compare them with the facts of other employees whose case was relied upon by the CIT(A). It was not the case of the Revenue before the Tribunal that no concession, as recorded in the order dated 03rd August, 2001, was actually made by the Departmental Representative. The Departmental Representative having conceded that the facts o....