JUDGMENT
1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Mahajan, the learned counsel representing the Revenue.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 and is directed against the final order passed by the Tribunal disposing of the second appeal which had been filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 30th Dec., 1991.
3. From a perusal of the memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the appellant had prayed for the setting aside of the order passed by the CIT(A) and restoration of the order passed by the assessing authority. During the pendency of the second appeal, an application was filed on 9th Dec., 1999, praying for adding additional grounds of appeal which was allowed. The Tribunal vide impugned order while allowing the appeal only in part has modified the order passed by the CIT(A) with certain directions.
3. We have perused the order passed by the CIT(A) as well as the order passed by the Tribunal.
4. Much stress has been laid by the counsel for the appellant on the question regarding the permission granted by the Tribunal to add the additional grounds in support of the appeal. The contention is that at the stage at which the application seeking permission to add additional grounds was filed the limitation had expired. This contention is totally misconceived. As has already been noticed hereinabove, the scope of the appeal before the Tribunal was wide enough as the setting aside of the entire order passed by the CIT(A) had been sought for. It was not a case where it could be said that the additional grounds did not arise from the order passed by the CIT(A). The permission to add and urge the additional grounds, necessarily related back to the date of the filing of the appeal. In any view of the matter, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant as he had been given full opportunity to contest the aforesaid grounds and cannot be said to have been taken by surprise.
5. The findings returned by the Tribunal against the appellant could not be demonstrated to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference therein by this Court in the present proceedings.
6. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which may require consideration.
7. This appeal, consequently fails and is dismissed in limine.