(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue on the following substantial questions of law:
(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal was correct in merely holding that no error was pointed out in respect of the appellate Commissioner's orders without independently considering the controversy before it and recording a finding on it? 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent assessee as an individual had filed re turn a for the assessment year 1993 -94 on 30.11.1993. The assessing officer found that the assessee had disclosed profits from business of Horizon Constructions, i.e. construction and sale of flats but in respect of premises called Land Mark Apartment 'A' block, the assessing officer found that the total construction investment was to an extent of Rs. 70,63,540/ - which was also confirmed by a valuation report. However, what had been disclosed by the assesses was Rs. 50,11,275/ - as the expenditure on construction and that there was a difference of Rs. 20,52,265/ -The said difference was treated as unexplained investment of the assesses and was added back under Section 69 of the Act under an assessment order dated 27.03.1996.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal before the appellate Tribunal and it would be of relevance to mention that revenue also filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. The appeal filed by the Revenue on the above issue was however dismissed by confirming the order of the Commissioner of Appeals with regard to the Land Mark Apartments, 'A' Block. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the revenue has preferred this appeal.