- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in not allowing the deduction of expenses to the tune of the composite amount of Rs. 3,20,000 for various asst. yrs. 1991 -92 to 1995 -96, especially when it is an admitted fact that deduction of expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000 as claimed for the asst. yr. 1995 -96 has been allowed ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in upholding the order of Asstt. CIT wherein the income for the asst. yrs. 1994 -95 and 1995 -96 were declared to be undisclosed overlooking the provisions of s. 139(4) -
(2.) FACTS relevant for decision of the appeal appearing from the order of the Tribunal are that search and seizure the search and seizure for the asst. yrs. 1994 -95 and 1995 -96. The income disclosed was treated as undisclosed income under s. 158BB of the Act. Rejecting the contention on behalf of the assessee that though filing of returns was due on and the return filed within the said time should also be treated as return filed within the meaning of the expression "due date" under s. 158BB of the Act.
(3.) IT was next submitted that deduction of expenses to the tune of composite amount of Rs. 3,20,000 for asst. yrs. 1991 -92 to 1995 -96 should have been allowed having regard to the fact that deduction of expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000 had been allowed for the asst. yr. 1995 -96. Learned counsel for the Revenue opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal.;