9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and confirmed by my predecessor for A Y 1992-93 was invested elsewhere or spent by the appellant. In agreement with the observation of the CIT(A) that the same income cannot be taxed year after year. This observation of the CIT(A) is not controvered by the Revenue by placing any other evidence suggesting that the income was not earlier taxed. In this view of the matter, this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed - in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No 308/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - Shri A. K. Garodia And Shri Kul Bharat, JJ. Revenue by: Sri T. Shankar, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER: KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 's total income at Rs. 18,22,770/- (e) On appeal, the ClT(A)-lV, Ahmedabad vide his order No. ClT(A)-IVInv. Cir.5(1)/25 26/1997-98 dated 31.3.2000 directed the assessing officer to tax the appellant's income at Rs, 1,49,599/-. (f) On further appeal by the department, the Hon'ble- ITAT vide its Order No. 1539/1540/541/ABAD/2000 dated September, 2006 set aside the assessment. (g) Pursuance to the ITAT's order, referred to above, the assessing officer finalized the assessment u/s. 144 r .w. s 254 of the Act vide his order dated 14.12.2007 and determined the appellant 's total income as:- Total Income as per processing. Rs. 4,82,840/- Difference of disclosure Rs,16,45,308/- Unpaid S.T/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances, this appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. Ld. Sr. D.R. strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the deletion made on account of difference of income is not justified. He relied on the Assessment Order. 4. We have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided this matter as under: 6. 1 have carefully considered the submissions made by the A. R. of the appellant. I have also gone through the observations of the assessing officer in the assessment order. It is seen that similar issue arose in the appellant's own case for A. Y 1992-93. My predecessor vide his order, referred to above has decided the said is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med that addition made by the A.O. in AY 1992-93 of Rs. 15,Z7,l90/- should be given set oft against addition of Rs. 16,45,308/- and only difference of Rs..1,18,118/.-.requires to be made. 7.1.2 . According to the A. R further difference of Rs. 1.35.800/- appearing in the balance sheet of Rs. 21,35,800/- as on 31.3.93 (Rs. 22,07,500 correct balance of Shri Vijaykumar - Rs. 2.07,500/- shown and hence difference of Rs 20,00,000/- required to be reduced from the balance sheet difference of Rs. 21,35,800/- ) can only be added. Therefore, it was contended that at the worth Rs. 1,18,118/-+ 1,35,800 = 2,53,913/-can be sustained against addition of Rs. 16,45,308/- by the assessing officer. 7.1.3. Vide para 6 of this order, the appellant s plea t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
