TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This Income Tax appeal has been preferred against the appellate order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in a Bunch of Appeals namely ITA Nos.699/Luc/2002 (block period 01.04.1989 to 09.02.2000); 700/Luc/2002 (block period 01.04.1989 to 09.02.2000); 701/Luc/2002 (block period 01.04.1989 to 09.02.2000); 702/Luc/2002 (block period 01.04.1989 to 09.02.2000);....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....articularly when no papers were seized suggesting that the income had accrued on mercantile basis. In the result, this ground is rejected. In the result, all the appeals of the Department are partly allowed for statistical purposes." The instant appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: 1."Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to which the income is to be taken as Nil for any previous year failing in the block period, where the due date for filing of return of income has expired and no return of income has been filed. 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A), who deleted the addition of Rs.1,06,460/- made on account of undisclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur vs. Sampat Kumar Gupta, Lucknow), whereby the surcharge @ 10% as levied by the department was found to be correct and thus, it was upheld. Further, the Court also held that the substantial question no. 1 was already covered by a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2008) 297 ITR 322 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh N. Gupta). The rati....