We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in this tax appeal. 2. This tax appeal has been filed on the following proposed substantial question of law.
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law by dismissing the appeal of the revenue without appreciating that CIT(A) did not give any finding as to the annulment of the 158BD order. The arguments as extracted in para 10 of the CIT(A)'s order is wrongly taken as his findings by the Appellate Tribunal. As such the CIT(A) gave only quantum relief which was challenged before Appellate Tribunal in the grounds raised. Thus the order of the Appellate Tribunal is without any factual basis and in fact on presumptions?”
3. The Tribunal has recorded finding of facts in paragraph 4 of its judgment which is extracted below.
“3. We have considered that rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that as per para 10 of his order, it is held by the Ld. CIT(A) that proceedings u/s 158BD in the present case are unwarranted and bad in law and consequently, block assessment order passed deserves to be cancelled. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce the relevant para 10 of the order of Ld. CIT(A): “10. The statement of facts, the written submissions and the paper book containing copies of evidences have been perused and considered so also the, contentions of the A.O. taken in the assessment order. The reasoning of the A.O. precisely is that if Shri Rajaiwala received some amount, it must have been paid by somebody. Moreover, Shri Rajaiwala agitated not to have contested the addition of Rs.17 lakhs made in his. The A.O. therefore has held that the unaccounted by the appellant. However, it is strongly argued on behalf of the appellant that it's name has not appeared on any of the papers seized from Shri Rajaiwala. The A. O. who made assessment in the case of Rajaiwala has not made any reference of the appellant in his order. In the circumstances, proceedings u/s 158BD in the case of the appellant were unwarranted and also bad in law. Consequently, block assessment order passed deserves to be cancelled. This argument has considerable force in view of the facts and circumstances submitted,. Moreover, in the assessment order made in the case of Shri Jayantibhai P. Patel u/s. 158BC the name of the appellant is not appearing. In the circumstances, the challenge to the legality of the assessment order cannot be outright rejected. Now, let us examine the additions made, on merits.”
4. As per above para of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that on technical aspect, it is held by the learned CIT(A) that the Block assessment order passed by the A.O. is bad in law and deserves to be cancelled. No ground has been raised by the revenue against this finding of Ld. CIT(A) and hence, ground raised by the revenue on merits is of academic interest only and hence, the same are not being decided.
5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed in the terms indicated above.”
4. In view of the aforesaid finding of facts and as the questions raised by the department is only academic, we do not find that the question raised by the Revenue raises any substantial question of law. This appeal devoid of any merits, and it is accordingly dismissed.
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Amit [N. V. ANJARIA, J.]