Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) REVENUE has preferred this appeal under section 260 -A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') passed in M.A. No. 99/Chandi/2004 dated 19 -1 -2005 arising out of IT(SS) No. 12/Chandi/97 dated 22 -10 -2003 for the block period 1 -4 -1985 to 5 -10 -1995, proposing following substantial question of law: - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of the search conducted under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 keeping in view the stand taken by the Special Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Ramiah Reddy v. CIT (Bang.) (2003/81 TTJ 1044) as well as Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Sh. Varinder Kumar Bhatia v. Dy. CIT 79 ITR and distinguishable facts in the instant case from those of Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and M/s Paras Rice Mills.? The appeal of the assessee is pending before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed application for raising, additional ground. The Tribunal allowed raising of additional ground vide order dated 22 -10 -2003. The revenue thereafter filed an application for rectification which has been dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that additional ground of appeal could not be allowed to be raised. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the revenue did not file any appeal against the order permitting raising of additional ground and the order declining rectification. She also relies on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, : [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) in support of her contention that additional ground of appeal can be allowed to be raised. Reliance has also been placed on Popular Engineering Co. v. ITAT, : [2001] 248 ITR 577 (Punj. & Har.), to submit that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for rectification.
(3.) IN view of submissions of learned counsel for the assessee we do not find any substantial question of law for entertaining appeal filed by the revenue.;