9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the original assessment order - AO has excluded both the unexplained deposits of Rs.15,45,000/- as well as the source of Rs.15,45,000/- from the computation of undisclosed income - except in the first assessment order passed on 29.11.1996, the net effect of computation pertaining to Rs.15,45,000/- was that the amount of Rs.15,45,000/- was never considered as the undisclosed income of the assessee - AO has properly dealt with the issue and rightly rejected the said claim of the assessee. Accordingly we dismiss all the grounds raised in this regard. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee contested various additions made in the block assessment. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 18-09-1997, set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to redo the assessment. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment on 15.3.2000 by determining the undisclosed income at Rs.81,90,780/-. The assessee again preferred direct appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed its order on 09th May 2003. As the Tribunal failed to dispose of certain grounds raised by the assessee, a miscellaneous petition was moved by him subsequently. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed orders on the miscellaneous petition on 31.10.2003. After receipt of the Tribunal order dated 31.10.2003, the AO implemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estments and outgoings (Page 10 of the order). The net effect is that there is no addition on account of Rs.15,45,000/-, (Deposit (-) Source = 0). Thus the AO has treated the above said amount as undisclosed deposit and also as a source, as requested by the assessee before the Tribunal in the original appeal. 8. As stated earlier, the Tribunal did not consider this issue in its order dated 09-05- 2003. The Tribunal considered this issue in its order dated 31.10.2003 passed on the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee. On that occasion, a fresh plea was made before the Tribunal that the deposits found in the Bank account belonging to M/s Manju enterprises cannot be considered in the hands of the assessee, as the said concern is a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- as well as the source of Rs.15,45,000/- from the computation of undisclosed income. In the earlier orders, the AO had included the said amount as undisclosed asset, but treated an equal amount as source. It can be seen that the net effect was 'NIL' addition in both types of computation, i.e., whether both the deposit and sources are included in the computation of undisclosed income or excluded from it. 11. In the proceeding before the AO while giving final effect of the order of ITAT, it appears that the assessee had made an attempt to submit that he has actually received a sum of Rs.15,45,000/- from the partnership firm M/s Manju Enterprises. In our view, this is also a new plea taken for the first time before the AO, because all along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal is preferred against the assessment order dated 31.3.2005, wherein we do not find any discussion about the bank loans of Rs.7,90,900/- referred supra. In the written submissions, the assessee is all through making reference to the assessment order dated 15.3.2000 with regard to these loans. In our considered view, the assessee should have raised the grounds relating to the bank loans while filing appeal against the assessment order date 15.3.2000. Having missed the bus at the relevant point of time, in our view, the assessee cannot raise those grounds in the appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 31.3.2005, wherein these bank loans were not an issue at all. Accordingly, we reject the grounds relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
