9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income." 2. The facts in brief as narrated in the order of Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- "The facts of the case for the assessment year under consideration are similar to that of Assessment year 1392-93 wherein my predecessor has decided the appeal vide order No ClT(A)-VII/1 95/2007-08 dated 11-06-2009. The facts of the case briefly stated are that :- (a) The appellant filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 8.10.93 declaring total income of Rs. 3,779/-. The said return was processed on 27-1-94 after making prima facie adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,190/- by making an addition of Rs, 15,27,190/- on account of disclosure made by the appellant, which was confirmed by my predecessor vide his order dated 11 -06-2009. (i) According to the appellant, the disclosure had arisen due to the balance sheet difference of Rs. 18,32,964/- for A Y 1992-93 and Rs. 21,35,800/- for A.Y. 1993-94, which were subsequently retracted. 4.1 While finalizing the assessment under section 144 r.w.s 254 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which presently in appeal before the undersigned, the assessing officer has made the addition of Rs. 16,45,308/- (on account of difference between the disclosure made by the appellant during the course of Rs. 21,28,148/- and the income of Rs. 4,82,840/- admitted by the appellant in the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A. R. of the appellant has raised an alternate plea. It was submitted by the A R of the appellant that there was disclosure of Rs. 18,82,965'- for A.Y 1992-93 and Rs 21,28,146/- for A.Y. 1993-94. The ClT(A}-Vll, Ahrnedabad vide his order dated 11-06-2009 for AY. 1992-93 had confirmed the addition of Rs 15,27,1990/- made by the assessing officer on account of difference in the disclosure made by the appellant and the income admitted in the return The disclosure made was on account of excess of .assets over .liabilities in the balance sheet of Rs. 18,82,964/-for A.Y. 1992-93 and Rs. 21,35,800/-for A Y 1993-94 which were subsequently retracted for both the years. 7.1 It is the contention of the A R. that the mistake in account of Shri Vijay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 31.03-1993). This plea is on the well-established principle that the same income cannot be taxed year after year. The disclosure for both the years was made on the basis of balance sheets found during the course of search. There is nothing on record to show that the income disclosed and confirmed by my predecessor for A Y 1992-93 was invested elsewhere or spent by the appellant. 8. Having considered the facts of the case, I find sufficient force in the contentions put forth by the A. R. of the appellant Hence, l am inclined to direct the assessing officer to set-off the addition of Rs. 15,27,190/- made in the A. Y. 1992-93 and retain the addition of Rs 2,53,918/-. Thus the appellant gets relief of Rs. 13.01,390/- [Rs.16,45.308/- -Rs. 2,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
