1URAN BHANAND CO HYD vs. THE ASST.COMM OF INCOME TAX HYD

The income Tax CfFicer (the 1T0) by his order dated 31 3.1995: Made additions of certain ammmts in the insame of the Assessee and calculated the tax ciue an the same; !ssuecl notices for pena£ty prmeed’mgs unéer $ection 2?? M2) (c) of the Aet. *— The Assessee filed an appeai before the Commissioner of mcome Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A). It was allowed by thelClT~A by his order dated 15.1 1 .1995 on the ground that the Assessee was; not the proprietor of Mfs. Marutl Traders, but one Shrl Ashok Slngh was thellproprletor of the same. 5. ll n‘ 6. TheDepartment filed an appeal beforelrhe lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (the Trlbunal). lt was dismissed on 28.7.1999. Hence, the present appeal by the Etepajrtment. 7. We have heard counsel for the Appellant. No one has, put up appearance on benatt of the Respondents. 8. This appeat was actmttted on 23.3.2009 on the foliowtng substantial question of law : ‘Whether on the tacts anti in the cheerhetanoes of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justlt'tett tn holoting that Shirt Ashok Singh is the reai owner ot‘ Mist Matut‘r Traders and there is no evidence to prove that the Assessee is owner of Mis, Mamti Traders?” in its order, the CIT-A has mentioned 9 different reasons on the basis of which, the finding has been recorded that} $hri Ashok $ingh was the proprietor of Mia. Mareti ‘i‘raders. This tincting l‘Enas been upheld by the Tribunal. 9. is. Apart from other documents, in ail the ‘ nk documents as weil as in the sales tax returns, name of $hri Ashokqfingh is reconcied as the proprietor ot‘ M/s. Maruti Traders. in View of the same, it oannot’ be said that