Appeal

If substantial question of law arises for consideration, appeal under s 260A is maintainable — as held by DelHC in CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora — In favour of: The Revenue ; ITA No. 713 of 2010

CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora

High Court of Delhi

ITA No. 713 of 2010

A.K. Sikri and M.L. Mehta, JJ

Decided on: 3 May 2011

Counsel appeared:

Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant

Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for the respondent

Judgment

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. We had heard the counsel for the parties on the admission of this appeal. After

hearing the matter, we are of the view that the substantial questions of law do arise for

consideration.

2. Admit. The following substantial questions of law are framed:

“(i) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions, which were made by the

AO in circumstances which clearly where no books of account were produced

and documents recovered which justified an inference regarding excess expenditure

for which no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the assessee?

(ii) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions which were made by the AO

based upon documents/evidence detected during the course of operations u/s 132 of

the Act and which was confronted to the assessee by way of recording of statement

under the provision of 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of confessional statement

u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the assessee at the point of search especially in

view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramdas

Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 177?”

(ii) Whether the unaccounted payments evidenced from the seized records can be

held to be a value/benefit derived by the assessee from the company M/s. PSAL

within the meaning of Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause (24) of section (2) of the Act?”

3. Additional papers, if any, may be filed by the parties within three months.