ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of IT Appeal Nos. 361, 371 of 2004, 568 and 688 of 2005. All the four appeals have been filed by the Revenue under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and are said to involve same questions.
(2.) IT Appeal No. 361 of 2004 arises from order dt. 4th June, 2004 of the Tribunal, Bench SMC-I, New Delhi in ITA No. 1926/Del/2000 for the asst. yr. 1995-96 and raises following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the business of the assessee continued particularly when electricity connection had been cut off and no regular business activities were done as all the business premises were lying closed ? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,01,232 made by the AO on account of expenditure relating to the closed business ? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,79,306 made by the AO by holding that the business of the assessee continued during the year ?" The assessee filed return on the net loss which included brought forward losses. The AO did not accept the return and disallowed the expenses and brought forward loss on the ground that no business was being carried on by the assessee. Its electricity supply had been cut off and there was no transaction of business. The factory was lying closed. Operation of bank account also showed that no business was being run. No workers were employed. On appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the additions on the ground that the assessee had operated the bank accounts, its books of account were duly audited and thus, its business was continuing. On further appeal, the said finding was affirmed.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the assessee in spite of service.;