ANUPAM SUSHIL GARG
Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-156
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
October 22,2003
ANUPAM SUSHIL GARG
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. V. DHARAMSING VALLABHJI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]J.N. SAHANI V. ITAT AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MONTRIEL STREET RAILWAYS COMPANY V. NORMANDIN [REFERRED TO]
JAGIR SINGH VS. RANBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
G S LAMBA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER CHADHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SINGH DALLU NATHU RAM RAM PHAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KAPIL VS. SANA ULLAH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
T SRINIVASAN VS. T VARALAKSHMI MRS [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. S RAGHUNATHAN:S P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN ARORA VS. ASHA RANI [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH [REFERRED TO]
CHITRA KUMARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
ATUL CASTINGS LIMITED VS. BAWA GURVACHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL N SHETTI VS. PRAKASH N RUDRAKAR [REFERRED TO]
BALJEET JOLLY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD AND SONS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.S.Chauhan, J. -
(1.)This appeal under the provisions of Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) has been filed time-barred. There is a delay of 29 days. For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit and after hearing Shri Mahajan learned counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal deserves to be allowed and the delay is condoned.
(2.)This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 26th Feb., 2003, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 349/BK/2002, for the asst. yr. 1994-95.
(3.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an assessment for the year 1994-95, was made by the assessing authority showing his agricultural income for the year 1994-95 as Rs. 36,04,821. The assessing authority after considering the record estimated the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs. 5 lacs and held that the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 3,14,821 was from undisclosed sources.
(2.)This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 26th Feb., 2003, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 349/BK/2002, for the asst. yr. 1994-95.
(3.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an assessment for the year 1994-95, was made by the assessing authority showing his agricultural income for the year 1994-95 as Rs. 36,04,821. The assessing authority after considering the record estimated the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs. 5 lacs and held that the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 3,14,821 was from undisclosed sources.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.