9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B", in ITA No. 786/Chandi/2000, relating to the assessment year 1997-98, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse as it is not supported by any material on record? ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse because the Tribunal has ignored vital evidence led by the assessee in which it has been categorically proved that the assessee had a sum of Rs.1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warranted as for the assessment year 1996-97, the CIT(A) in his order had accepted the factum of cancellation of sale deed and receipt of the amount of Rs.1,64,000/- by the assessee on 9.1.1995. Since the order of the CIT(A) had been accepted by the revenue for the preceding year as no further appeal was filed challenging the same, the finding of the CIT(A) had attained finality. The Tribunal held that since there were withdrawals made by the assessee on 10.3.1995 and the assessee did not possess cash amounting to Rs.1,64,000/- on the date of the search, i.e., 11.8.1995 therefore, cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.4.1996 was undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of 1/5th of car expenses amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by him on 9.1.1995 on cancellation of sale deed. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in paras 9 and 10 while affirming the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are as under:- "9. Now the next question required to be determined by us is that in case the assessee has received this amount of Rs.1,64,000/- on account of the cancellation of the sale deed on 9.1.1995. Whether the impugned amount of Rs.1 lakh out of the same was available with the assessee during the assessment year 97-98 under consideration. Now according to the assessee he had purchased the land in question on 6.12.1994 and cancelled the deal on 9.1.1995 and after cancellation of the same he received back the entire investment of Rs.1,64,000/- on 9.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts when a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- in cash was already available with him. It is also important to mention here that no part of the amount of Rs.1,64,000/- was available with the assessee on the date of search i.e. 11.8.95 when it has been alleged by the assessee that this amount was kept in cash by the assessee. The nonavailability of this cash further gets support from the fact that the assessee has been withdrawing the cash from his business on 10.3.95 and 15.3.95. In our opinion no prudent person would withdrew further cash for any purpose for which the alleged available cash was to be utilized when sufficient cash is already available with that person. The assessee has also not been able to explain before us as to why this amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
