9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement dt.,1st Jan., 1980, the genuineness of which is being disputed by the Revenue. The ITO included the amounts declared by the aforesaid assessees as their income on the aforesaid account on protective basis as he was including the same in the income of Shri A.N. Agarwal. The two assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) but the appeals were dismissed. The learned CIT(A) observed as below in the case of Master Parveen Agarwal: "The first contention in this appeal is against the IAC's observation that he was making a protective assessment on the assessee on the basis of declared income. Secondly it is contended that the assessment of the amount of Rs. 1,69,204 declared by the assessee in his return would amount to double assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of income returned. I, therefore, reject both the contentions of the appellant and dismiss the appeal." 3. The assessee have now come up in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us. 5. It was contended that sinced the amounts have already been included in the income of Shri A.N. Agarwal, they could not be assessed as income of the present assessees and should have been deleted as otherwise it would amount to double assessment. It was also pointed out that in the case of Smt. Shobha Agarwal, the CIT(A) deleted the income in question for asst. yr. 1982-83 vide order dt., 20th Sept., 1985 and the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and who voluntarily files his return, does not actually cause any prejudice to the said assessee particularly when the demand of additional tax in respect of the disputed amount is not being passed in both the cases. As is evident from the Tribunal's order dt.29th April, 1988, the controversy in being agitated in the case of Shri A.N. Agarwal and unless it is finally decided there, it cannot be said conclusively as to whether the amount belongs to the present assessees or to Shri A.N. Agarwal. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the case of Smt. Shobha Agarwal for asst. yr. 1982-83 the Department has accepted the CIT(A)'s order is not supported by any material. In any case the failure of the Department to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
