9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pure finding of fact. No question of law on the basis of such finding arises for consideration, as only income from concealed sales could be taken into consideration. Interest charged under Section 215/217 - ITAT disposed of the additional ground regarding cancellation by the CIT (A) of interest by observing that the department has challenged only the admission of additional ground by the CIT(A) and also not impliedly challenged the decision on merits - Held that:- As the department has more amount in its control than the amount of advance tax payable by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee is liable to pay interest on the amount of advance tax. We do not find any substantial question law arises for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mated sales at Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and by applying gross profit rate @ 5%, the profit would come to Rs. 11,50,000/-. Since the assessee has shown profit of Rs. 7,01,187/- and had also surrendered an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 132(4) of the Act, therefore, an amount of Rs. 48,813/- was found to be concealed income of the assessee during the year under consideration. In addition to the said amount, another Rs. 50,000/- was added to the income on the basis of probable investment made by the assessee during the year under consideration. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana vide its order dated 14.08.1991 set aside the said addition by observing to the following effect:- At best, addition can be made on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.03.1997 to adjust the seized amount towards the tax due at the time of filing of the return. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay interest in terms of Sections 215 and 217 of the Act. The Tribunal in further appeal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana. The Revenue sought to raise the substantial questions of law as mentioned above, which were declined by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.1998. The Revenue has thus filed the present petition under Section 256(2) of the Act. In respect of first substantial question of law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has found that sales to the tune of Rs. 7,49,608/- were affected outside the books of account and therefore the gross profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
