AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant, is as follows: The assessee, a registered firm, derives income from purchase and sale of copper wire and motor stampings. It has two partners. One of the partners, namely, R. K. Gupta is based in Coimbatore and looks after the sales of the assessee-firm. The goods are purchased in Delhi, transported to Coimbatore and sold there. On February 13, 1990, search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act took place at the business and residential premises of the assessee and its partners both at Delhi and Coimbatore. According to the Revenue, post-search enquiries revealed that some of the goods transported to Coimbatore had been sold but the sale proceeds were not accounted for in the books of account. It was felt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out such concealed sales at Rs. 15,82,487, representing the difference between the goods dispatched as per the books of Patel Roadways and as declared by the assessee and added the same to the returned income as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Consequently, another addition of Rs. 2,12,053, being the profit earned on the undisclosed investment was also made to the returned income. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), challenging both the additions. Inter alia, observing that on scrutiny of the statements of various persons, recorded by the ADI, Coimbatore, he did not find any adverse comments against the appellant and further the representative of Patel Roadways h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mind that the said order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) cannot be said to be valid order which deleted the addition of the respondent of Rs. 15,82,487 made on account of unexplained investment representing unrecorded sales at Coimbatore? (3) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in the eyes of law to completely rely on the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without applying its mind that the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be said to be valid order which deleted the addition of Rs. 2,12,053 made on account of undisclosed profit arising from the above said unrecorded sales? (4) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in the eyes of law to ignore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order cannot be said to be valid, legal and proper in the eyes of law? (6) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in the eyes of law in ignoring substantial evidence collected against the assessee by the Assessing Officer through enquiries made in Delhi and Coimbatore and after recording statements from various parties and whether justified in granting relief to the assessee on the basis of irrelevant material/evidence? (7) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in the eyes of law in ignoring the submissions of the departmental representative that in this case the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have given an opportunity to the Assessing Officer before proceeding to delete the two additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, for determining whether a question of law raised in a case is a "substantial question of law" or not. In that case it was said that the proper test would be, whether: (i) it is of general public importance; or (ii) it directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties; or (iii) it is an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court; or (iv) is not free from difficulty; and (v) it calls for discussion of alternative views. It is well settled that where determination of an issue depends upon the appreciation of evidence or materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts, without application of any principle of law, the issue raises ....