COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M.C. GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), has referred the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for answering the reference may be noticed. The assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s Garg Eye and Maternity Hospital, Kaithal. The assessee's premises were searched under s. 132 of the and accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 48,891 (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 49,091 in the original assessment). The assessee contested the said addition before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) remanded the issue to the file of the AO to directed the AO that in case he came to the conclusion that the sources of expenses remained unexplained, he will also consider similar expenses likely to have incurred by the assessee for the period not covered in the seized diary but covered for the assessment year in question. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against the impugned order and the learned Tribunal modified the direction of the CIT(A) that the addition in any case on this account should not exceed the addition originally made. It is against the said observation of the learned Tribunal that the reference has been made to this Court at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this Court.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and with his assistance perused the paper book.