S. 292C : Presumption as to assets, books of account–Does not hold good in case the addition is made in the hands of a person other than the person searched- Un explained expenditure. [S. 69C, 153A, 153C]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Explanation 5A-Disclosure of additional income in the statements and in return filed under S. 153A-Notwithstanding that the income declared in the return fled for the period under consideration is accepted – Liable to penalty. [S.153A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– CIT has to record his prima facie opinion in the show-cause notice, that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Jurisdiction – Bombay High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals in respect of order passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, notwithstanding the fact that an order was passed under S.127 transferring the assessee’s case from AO at Bangalore to AO at Pune. [S. 116, 124, 127]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–High Court cannot re-examine the same evidence and reach a different factual conclusion than the lower authorities. [S. 40A(3)]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Delay in filing appeal on account of difference in opinion between two officers and the time taken in obtaining legal opinion was condoned on payment of cost.

S. 260A : Appeal–High Court–Tribunal order passed after High Court remanded the matter–Remedy against that order is by filing an appeal under S. 260A and not by way of SLP to Supreme Court. [S. 10A(6), 260A, 261]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Duties-Dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution has resulted in failure of justice–Order requires to be rectified – Delay of 497 days in filing the miscellaneous application was condoned, though the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond six months–Cost of Rs. 5000 is imposed on the assessee. [S.254(1) Art, 226, 227]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Grounds raised and not given up remains un decided-Tribunal to either adjudicate on or to direct the AO to consider the additional evidence-Judgement of the Tribunal gives rise to an error on the face of the record, which is rectifiable. [S. 254(1)]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay -An order can be said to suffer from a “mistake apparent from the record” if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same. [S. 80HHC, 154]