- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) WHILE admitting the appeal on 24th November, 2010 the following substantial questions of law were framed:- "(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80HHC in respect of the work done by the assessee under the name of "Job Charges"? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the findings of the CIT (Appeals) by holding that proceedings initiated under Section 148 for reassessment in respect of the assessment year in question are legal and proper and whether the findings recorded in paragraph 16 of the impugned order are legally justified?" Learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that both the questions, which have been framed while admitting the appeal do not arise either from the order of the Appellate Tribunal or pleadings of the parties. He submitted that it appears that due to inadvertence the questions have been framed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has fairly and frankly admitted this position and submitted that both the questions do not arise from the order as well as pleadings of the parties. However, he submitted that the questions, which arise in the present matter have been mentioned in Para 7 of the memo of appeal, therefore, the same may be considered as the substantial questions of law.;