" --1 I"¥’-_I W" m ‘vm'ra' am 3m"! m ma?w arm m m (Wu) mmeiwm 33mm“ HHATTISGARH AT BILASF’UR ‘ HIGH COURT OF C} Coram: Hon’ ble S Hon’ ble S Tax Ca 5e No. 09 of 200? Appellant Vs. Respondent 1ri Dhirendra Mishra, & hri RN. Chandrakar, JJ Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Raipur. Mls. Techno Drillers Tagore Nagar, Raipur. (income Tax Appears u/:i§. 260-A of income Tax Act, 1961) Shri S. Rajeshwér Rao, Jpunsel for the appellant. Ptesent: Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. mm» “en/”AV“ bral Order § ‘ (Passed o;n this 2"" July, 2009) mWV wrwwswwx w~ . .rV The matter is listed on default for non-compliance of the order dated 7-5-2009. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial question of law on which this appeal has been tiled, has already been decided by this court vide order dated 13-4—2009 passed in MA. (IT) No. 111/2000 (Commissioner of income Tax vs. M/s. Gupta Enterprises), wherein it has been held that the issue regarding the method of estimation of sale value and estimation of income on the basis of sale value can, by no stretch of imagination, be considered to be a - substantial question of law. gr \ 3"? {ck- a’z fa’a: am Maw W fq; ‘ mm . ............................................mzc :V _ ’ a Wm (Wu) E ma: grew arm _ 1/: From perusal of the grounds taken by the éppellant in the memo of appeal, we find that the appe‘ %aifcmm lant has mainly impugned the manner in which the income pf the assessee has been assessed by the Assessing Officer. in View of the aforesaid (trder, we are of the considered opinion that raised by the appellant is squarely covered the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax ra) . the substantiai question of law by the judgment of this court in vs. M/s. Gupta Enterprises (sup Sd/- Raju ll Dhirendra Mishra l Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. a” ML mulmz a/La-l 454