9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. yr. 1991-92, which included self capital of Rs. 86,860 and her son Mohit's capital who was a child and which was deposited in her account at Rs. 24,000. The asset side of the balance sheet for asst. yr. 1991-92 stood as under: M/s Ghalot Pan Bhandar Rs. 7,532 M/s Ghalot Industries Rs. 37,845 FDR Rs. 42,600 Cash in hand Rs. 22,883 Total capital Rs. 1,10,860 The assessee purchased a FDR of Rs. 10,000 on 4th Jan., 1991. In the opinion of the AO, if the assessee had more money, she would have purchased a bigger amount of FDR or in the alternative, given the amount as loan to various parties. On these facts, it was held by the AO that the assessee had no cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld retain cash for the intervening period before making purchase of FDR or investing with some other concern. The finding of the authorities below is in the realm of suspicion and conjectures totally ignoring the fact that the cash in hand shown by the assessee as at the close of the immediately preceding year was at Rs. 22,883. Without disturbing any other account of the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1991, there was no reason for not accepting the cash in hand out of which the above referred two investments were made by the assessee. In my considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding this addition. By overturning the impugned order on this score, I order for the deletion of this addition. 5. The other ground r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the order of assessment and notice of demand were issued by the same officer and both the orders were passed on the same day charging of interest under s. 234B in the demand notice was valid even though the assessment order did not mention specific sections while issuing direction to charge interest and SLP against this judgment also stands dismissed in the case of 254 ITR 279 (St). On the contrary, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has decided this controversy in favour of the assessee by following the decision of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 : (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) in the case of CIT vs. Kishan Lal (HUF) (2002) 258 ITR 359 (Del). This controversy about the charging of interest was decided by the Special Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
