VADDANAHAL RAJANNA (HUF), PROP. VADDANAHAL SHIVALINGAPPA AND CO., ARECANUT MERCHANT, A.P.M.C. YARD Vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is along with Misc.Cvl. 9372/09 to condone the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is filed by the Assessee. Since we are not interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal, accepting the reasons in support of the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and this appeal is taken up for admission.

(2.) HEARD Sri R. Rama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Correctness of the impugned order is questioned in this appeal by framing following substantial questions of law and urged grounds in support of the same. (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case, order of the Appellate Tribunal is not one of perverse? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer? (iii) Whether, order of the Tribunal is substantial in law?

(3.) THOUGH three substantial questions of law are framed, only question No. 1 referred to above is taken up for consideration. The other two questions depends upon the finding that will be recorded on the other questions of law.