9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows:- "1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs.85,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act as an unexplained investment, though the investment had been made by the appellant in the preceding year i.e. assessment year 1993-94? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the money spent by the appellant in the preceding year could have been assessed in the assessment year under appeal under section 69 of the I.T Act 1961? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.Tribunal is right in law in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act though the very basis of the reopening of the case i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f his past savings from his salary income and the balance Rs.55,480/- on account of unsecured loan raised from three parties, i.e., Rs.16,280/- from his mother, Rs.19,500/- from an agriculturist friend Girja Ram Sharma and another sum of Rs.19,700/- from one Sh.Nitya Nand. The Income Tax Officer did not accept this explanation given by the appellant and added the entire amount of Rs.1,55,480/- to the income of the appellant for the assessment year 1994-95. In an appeal filed by the appellant, the explanation of the assessee was accepted in respect of Rs.55,480/- and, therefore, the addition was reduced by Rs.55,480/-. The Commissioner, Income Tax however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect of Rs.1 lac mainly o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r not is a pure question of fact and not of law. The assessment was rightly reopened since the assessee himself has admitted that the cost of construction was much higher than what was reflected in his original returns. Therefore, these questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The main question before us is question No.1 in the Income Tax Appeal No.18 of 2005. According to Sh.Vishal Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, since the explanation has been accepted that the amount was spent in the year preceding the assessment in question, the same could not have been added to the income of the assessee for the asseement year 1994-95. In support of his contention, Sh.Vishal Mohan, Advocate has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
