9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by cheques and most of them were assessed to income-tax. The Tribunal has given further relief to the asses-see and has not accepted the argument of the Department that the expla-nation furnished by the assessee for the addition under section 69 on account of the unexplained investment was not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. - Revenue's appeal dismissed - decided in favor of assessee. Regarding charging of interest - held that:- Even if any provision of law is mandatory and provides for charging of tax or interest, the view taken in Ranchi Club Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT] is that such charge by the Assessing Officer should be specific and clear and the assessee must be made to know that the Assessing Officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the unexplained share application money of Rs. 4,68,100, and Rs. 46,500 out of the addition made against the difference in the cost of construction of Rs. 2,47,994, and confirmed the other additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Commis-sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) revised his earlier order dated July 31, 1992, and allowed further relief of Rs. 54,800 and Rs. 20,848 out of the total addi-tion of Rs. 3,05,493 made on account of the unexplained sundry creditors for goods and expenses. 5. The Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated July 31, 1992. The asses-see also filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by which he uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had produced relevant evidence before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) establishing that all the persons, who had deposited the share application, were not fictitious persons. Most of them were identifiable ; they made the payment by cheques and most of them were assessed to income-tax. The Tribunal has given further relief to the asses-see and has not accepted the argument of the Department that the expla-nation furnished by the assessee for the addition under section 69 on account of the unexplained investment was not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. 9. We do not propose to go into each and every investment made by the persons, as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his original order and the revised ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.) 5. 13. In view of the above, question No. 1 is decided against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee. 14. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found, relying upon CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209 (SC), that the Assessing Officer did not make any specific order charging interest under any specific provision. He just mentioned at the end of the order : "charge interest as per the Rules" 15. In CIT v. Deep Awadh Hotel P. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 81 of 2002 decided on August 3, 2011) (since reported in [2013] 350 ITR 185 (All)) this court held as follows (page 188) : "In CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209 (SC) decided by the three judges of the Supreme Court, the special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
