XI-HG—78 3%T '*{WM<i, 0ti1'H'|(o, fslWI'My,< ,-^...&iae,.(x.^.^^ 'cfsn 3?i^T^?i^» ^i^<n4lTi ^ww ^ 'f^T7t <r3R^.i< ^affimsn^i APPELLANT: Assisteat Commissioner of Incoine Tax, Ward 2(1), Raipur -Vfcrsus- RESPONDENT: M/s Salyapath Investment & Propertics Pvt. Ltd., 24, DoongaH Colony, Cr.E. Road, Raipiir IMvXsipn Bench: Hon. Slul Dhiiendra Mlslua & Hon. Shri R.N. ClxaadralcM-, JJ. l-7-2009:- Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, coi( Heard. The appeUant (Revenue) h^ 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1| order ofthe Income Tax AppeU9.te| questions oflaw:- insel for fhe appellaut. preferred this appeal under Section 961 (for short 'the Acf) agaiast the Tribiuial on the foUowiag substantial • Whether, the Incon(i legaUy justified in ground fhat the Asse^ satisfaction before i4 Income Tax Act, 1961P (e Tax AppeUate Tribi.tnal was ajuiuUmg fhe assessiaent on fhe siag Officer has not recorded any isuiug notice u/s. 153C of the • Whether on fhe facts the order by the Trib; on aay reUable aad le aad m. fhe circuinstaxice of case |inaJ is illegal and was not based ^aUy acceptable evidence? w .y.-i' XI-HG—78 's^s -^WM^, (?fl1y'i<o, Pi<7iiyy tiqi 3iR?I 9P1W '^aTwgfeisn^ -^- q>N?pft;i'wrcff if'felfl'rfSre^R ^sifgtiaii^r Whether on the fact^ and ia the circuinstance of case the Tribuaal was rig|it in giviag fhe iuipugned finding at fhe niere assert|pn of the respondents without corroboration froTai 4ny extrinsic or mtrinsic aources and drawiug inferenc^s without auy basis? Briefly stated facts of S^e case that the Assesslug OfBcer coinpleted the assessnient ofthe ^espondent/assessee aud assessed his ^ection 153C read with Section 143(3) |ove order, fhe asscssee preferred an iacome at Rs.1,01,870/- under ^ of the Act. Aggrieved by the at| appeal, however, the appeal w^s dismissed aad the order of the Assessing OflBcer was confinued^ by the impugued order allowed ground that fhe Assessing OfSceij assessinent under Section 153C c Before entering into the ia| the appeUant, on being queried, iustaat case is Rs.56,718/ -. He ] The Income Tax AppeHate Tribunal the appeal of titte assessee on the did not record satisfactiou for making tfthe Act. srits of tbe case, leamed conxisel for subnutted that fhe tax effect ia fhe farther subiaitted that the inonetaiy lunit as per Instruction No. 197$, dated 27-3-2000 for filmg appeal before fhe High Court at the rele^aut tune was Rs.2 lakhs aad fhe tax efFect in fhe present case is less |than the nionetaiy tirnit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Tafcmg iuto consideration | the fact fhat the tax efEect in the Ipresent case is less fhan 2 lak^s asd keeping in vfew fhe circular -HC—78 75E[ "4|<4|d'LI, ®lTl<H'l®,[q<11*flj,< ?) TWISiR^gmW Barve •?(<(!W(feCTt?I -^r dated 27-3-2000 issued by the year 2000 in this regard, we negligible tax effect, the same dismissed. ^t_./_ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge finA =hi^rqN '^R^i? ^f 'fe'si' <F>i^i<, ^3iRn3ii^?i Central Board of Direct Taxes in fhe no substauce iii this appeal baving to be disniissed and it is hereby dederves trT- a ^ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge