9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") challenges the order dated 18/6/2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") relating to assessment year 2005-06.2) The question which arises in this appeal is thus: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the advances received by the assesseein cash (unexplained cash credit) was genuine a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -assessee by an order dated 27/12/2001. 4) In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the evidence led by the respondent-assessee and found that out of Rs.1.46crores received as advance for the purchase of flats/shops, a sum of Rs.72.25lacs had been received in cash. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the evidence led by the respondent-assessee and found that out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was engaged in the construction of properties. The assessee has also not disputed that all the monies were taken in cash and were repaid by bearer cheques. The facts relating to all the credits are more or less similar............................................ The CIT(A) has made a distinction between monies advanced by a creditor all by himself and monies advanced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the same evidence even before us. However, they have not been able to point out any serious infirmity in the manner in which the evidence was appreciated by the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we hold that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed. We do so and dismiss the appeals filed both by the assessee as well as the Department". 6) We have considered the submissions. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
