loan thus has ceased
to exist in the later year. We find potency in the argument of the assessee
that where, apart from the clinching
mistake.
10. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on
behalf of the Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed
mistake.
10. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on behalf of the
Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed
mistake.
10. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on behalf of
the Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed
assessee has no probative value and thus unsustainable in
law. We find potency in the plea of the assessee that despite search,
no reference
mistake.
10. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on behalf of the Revenue
that the CIT(A) allegedly committed
capital gain as claimed by the assessee. Hence, we do not see potency in the claim of
PCIT that such income is chargeable under
mistake.
10. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on behalf of the
Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed
unaccounted income of the assessee. We thus do not find any potency in
the plea of the assessee for further relief towards downward estimation
mistake.
10. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on behalf
of the Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed