- (1.) By the Court: We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-department. On the order-sheet there is an endorsement by the office dated 7th
(2.) June, 2001, saying that notice has been duly served upon the sole respondent. No appearance has been put in from the side of the respondent.
(3.) The appellant has framed the following substantial question of law in this appeal: " Whether the I.T.A.T. Was justified in holding that the reimbursement of wages of Sweeper was not taxable as perquisite in the hands of the Assessee ?;