9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming addition of Rs.5,35,000/- made by the Respondent without there being evidences brought on record ? (II)Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the seized amount of Rs.5,35,000/- in the hands of the appellant despite the fact that the said amount belonged to M/s. Ohm Developers which has been confirmed by the said party before the Respondent and the said seized amount has been adjusted against tax demand of M/s. Ohm Developers by the Income Tax Department itself ? (III) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 132(4) and without any evidence in support thereof? (VIII) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not appreciating the evidences produced before both the lower authorities in respect of fact that Rs.5,00,000/- has been incurred out of money received from M/s. Sahyog Developer, of which the Appellant is a labour contractor? (IX) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) without in any way discussing the findings reached by the said authority and finding the same to be erroneous as "it was a duty of the Tribunal to ascertain the reasons which were given by the Commissioner (Appeals) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. It was revealed by the appellant that sum of Rs. 5,35,000/- belonged to M/s. Ohm Developers and cash and Rs.1,42,450/- belonged to his wife . Assessing Officer did not believe the version for want of any evidence and made addition of entire amount in the income of the appellant on the ground that he failed to explain the source of cash. 5. When challenged before CIT(Appeals), he sustained the addition of Rs.1,42,450/-. However, deleted the amount of Rs.5,35,000/-. 6. Revenue challenged this deletion of Rs.5,35,000/- before the Income Tax Tribunal. 7. Tribunal after closely examining the issue noted that the assessee had explained that the amount of Rs.1,42,450/- belonged to his wife. It also noted further that details of addresses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
