- (1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala (for short-'CIT Appeals'). The CIT (Appeals), in turn, had substantially confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The appeal is in respect of the block period from 01.04.1987 to 06.06.1997. The matter arises on account of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC(c) read with Sections 158(BB) (b) and Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act').
(2.) The appellant/assessee contends that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- "i) That the ITAT is not justified in non-consideration of legal objections and not deciding the Grounds of Appeal legally taken by the appellant though reproduced in its order under Statutory appeal indicate non-application of mind by the ITAT while deciding the appeal and thus deserve indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in setting aside the orders of ITAT and the Authorities below. ii) That the ITAT is not justified in concurring with the findings of CIT (A) without considering the arguments, explanations and judicial decisions and also without passing any speaking order on the legal issue of reference to special auditors u/s 142(2A)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too having so done without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant being a basic and legal requirement of such reference. iii) That the ITAT is not justified in concurring with the findings of CIT(A) without considering the arguments, explanations and judicial decisions and also without passing any speaking order on the legal issue pertaining to "Dumb Document" giving no indication to prove having any connection any enquiry qua the said document and also not appreciating the legal principle that though any document found at the place of the assessee is presumed to be belonging to him but this presumption is rebuttable and having duly rebutted by the appellant the resultant addition of Rs.32,72,595/- in the hands of appellant is bad in law. iv) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, 60,000/- and Rs.70,000/- in the A.Y. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993- 94 respectively on the basis of estimation of undisclosed income from the alleged sale and purchase of land on the basis of the alleged dumb document as so referred in item No.(H) (spura) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H . v) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.40,000/-, in the A.Y. 1998-99, on the basis of estimation of undisclosed income from the alleged profit on sale of EO Plot and that of Bajaj Plot on the basis of the alleged dumb document copy at Annexure A-8 as so referred in item No.(H) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H . vi) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of alleged loans given, in the A.Y. 1998-99, and Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of loans raised as undisclosed income on the basis of the alleged dumb document copy at Annexure A-9 as so referred in item No.(H) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H . vii) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on account of alleged loans on 06.05.1997 and 30.05.1997 respectively by referring to some dumb document No.13 at page 48 on the basis of loans raised as undisclosed income on the basis of the alleged dumb document copy at Annexure A-10 as so referred in item No.(H) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H . viii) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.22,43,258/- by wrongly presuming it to be cash found during the course of search as per para 3.8 of its order which factually incorrect as there was no such cash found during the search nor it was so held either by the AO or by the CIT(A) and thus ITAT without application of its mind concurred with the findings of AO. ix) That the order of the Tribunal is legally unsustainable & bad in law and perverse.
(3.) The appeal stands admitted only in respect of question No.(i). In our view, the other questions do not raise any substantial question of law.;