Taxc/38/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur v. M/S Anoop Silver Palace

\- X-HC—^x^JXG.^rsi •^ww^. y'fli-'-i'is, rsi^fWH'o? \^"^^-^^"^"^^^^^^^^^^"-"-^^ (^^^r^^~ l^^a^^Ultldl *MI<t>^ 200s^\ Tl^? ('^f3^1')•iv'••~rT} aii^i^. r^. grqw :-T"^ i jyRnwafya['s^i]qiwi-i<il-f^; ^w-f, WtTO ^ 3iKfT feta <i-«<i<HIGH COURT OF CHHARTfrlSGARH AT BII.ASPURCoram:-Hon'bte Shri Phirendra Mishra &HonlileShri.N. Chandrakar. JJTax CaselPRNo.1067/2009ABBellantCoilnmissionerofIncomeTax,RevenueRait)ur(CG)VMSURespondentM/sjAnup Silver Palace,AssesseeAni)p Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur(cqTax Case(PRlNo.1073/2009AppellantCorjimissionerofIncomeTax,RevenueRaj)ur (CG)VersuRespondentM/s|Anup Silver Palace,AssesseeAnit> Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur(CGfcTax CaselPRNo.1074/2009AppellantConlimissionerofIncomeTax,RevenueRaitur (CG)VersyRespondentM/slAnup Silver Palace,AssesseeAnut> Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur(CG(Tax Case (PRtlNo.1075/2009AppellantCorrimissionerofIncomeTax,RevenueRaiOur(CG).VersusC^v^a <-•-£. •^dld'-!. •a<Tll-'.-"i'3. ;'-c'ii^'i< inWfT**1iq» TFI,200 MR?;TR'!7(':pT5^I) WWiT**ll<R -CT^200 i.»'i'''•'%:"^"'^'.^.%%.a3;g,•^'ii'V:^'.3 .•!/ ...&/--.r.-r'tL...f^,^^ <: "•^TTi-?TT i3'^'qr ai^?T i»rciw •3 TAJX^^G -pq ^j!.!,|(<|ti, ^^WPS. w"i\w-{' T^<-&^rpt2-j /&^ ^ 200^ W<T?IT%W<R 3^T=f:E'(-^f3^tf) .Li, ^'^^7^^c :l^ff?Tr iifm ^T sn^r F?tST ^T3f?^?T FRHW affi7! SiS^T (5)After carefully examining theorder of the CIT (Appeals) as alsothe order of Income Tax Apoellate Tltibunal. we find that both the Forumsbelow have recorded a concurrentfi|iding of fact that there was no suchmaterial/evidence for the Asse?sing|0fflcer for making the acfclition.Nosubstantial question of law anses ft(>r adjudioation of this appeal.Theappeal being without substancec^eserves to be and is accordinglydismissed. (6)A copy of this order be plcjced in the fites of Tax Case (PR)Nos. 1073/2009,1074/2009 and 107^/2009.Sd/-Sd/-R.N. ChandrakarDhirendra MishraJudgeJudge (6) Sd/-R.N. ChandrakarJudge