- (1.) Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant for admission. None is present on behalf of the respondent. These appeals have come up for admission under sub-section (2A) of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1961").
(2.) These appeals have arisen at the instance of the Revenue aggrieved by the order dated July 13, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in Income Tax Appeal No. 558/Alld/05 and Income Tax Appeal No. 617/AM/05, dismissing the same. Block assessment period in all the aforesaid appeals is the same, i.e., April 1, 1986, to February 12, 1997.
(3.) The appellant in Income Tax Appeal No. 81 of 2007, has formulated the following five questions contending that the same constitute substantial questions of law arising from the order impugned in this appeal passed by the Tribunal : "1. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the peak of unexplained debit of Rs. 35,81,988 in the assessment year 1995-96 would be subsumed in the higher debit of Rs. 48,01,158 in the assessment year 1996-97 and in thereby deleting the addition on account of the unexplained peak credit of Rs. 35,81,988 for the assessment year 1995-96, without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Palaniappan, 2000 242 ITR 719 in which the hon'ble High Court has held that the concealed income detected in an earlier year cannot be a source of any credit entry for the subsequent year as otherwise the purpose of the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act would be defeated ? 2. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the peak credit of the assessment year 1995-96 to be set off against the peak credit of the assessment year 1996-97 without appreciating that the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its order dated February 13, 2004, had never directed that the benefit of inter-year peak credits should be allowed to the assessee ? 3. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not appreciating that from the accounts prepared in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was never established that the peak credit of the assessment year 1995-96 was available for induction in the assessment year 1996-97 ? 4. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the peak of the unexplained debits in the assessment year 1996-97 will explain the peak of unexplained credits in the subsequent assessment year 1997-98 without giving any finding that the amount representing the peak debits of the assessment year 1996-97 were available with the assessee in the assessment year 1997-98 and without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court reported in : 242 ITR 719 referred to above ? 5. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not appreciating that consequent to its order the total income of the assessee has become less than the undisclosed income shown by the assessee in the block return which is in violation of the provisions of section 156BC expressly debarring the assessee from revising the block return ?";