9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) Following questions are proposed by the Revenue in this appeal where it challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5.6.09: "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.6,16,378/- made u/s.68 of the Act ? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on protective basis. When challenged before the CIT (Appeals), it remanded for the report of the Assessing Officer. The assessee furnished the source of amount of Rs.5,48,282/- which was the protective addition. The explanation was that it was received from Dr. Devdut who was residing at USA who brought gold in India and sold to meet the social obligations. On the ground that source of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the above, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly deleted the amount added by the Assessing Officer on protective basis in wake of substantive addition. The second issue pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.4,91,783/- which was added by the Assessing Officer as unexplained income of the assessee being the amount lying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently held that the explanation given was a plausible explanation and addition was made on the basis of surmises by the Assessing Officer.
Not having found any error in the orders and also not having found any question of law arising, this Tax Appeal deserves no further meritorious consideration and the same is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
