9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellate Tribunal, which vide its order dated 16.7.2010 concurred with the findings of CIT (Appeals). 4. Challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal, present Tax Appeal is preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as " the Act"), proposing following questions as substantial question of law for our consideration:- "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.15,68,700/- on account of difference in cash? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.20,89,516/- on account of cash payment? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which could not be explained by the assessee which could have given the Learned Assessing Officer a basis for making addition to the income of the assessee. On the contrary to this according to Learned Assessing Officer the sources disclosed by the assessee is more than the asset claimed to have been possessed by the assessee. This converse situation does not empower the Learned Assessing Officer to make addition of even a single rupee to the disclosed income of the assessee. For the above reason, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs.15,68,700/-. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." The Tribunal appears to have decided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid assessment year as the source of making interest payment. The Tribunal also did not find any submission on the part of the Revenue to point out any error, particularly, in the wake of the fact that Rs.40 lakhs was already assessed to tax as additional income. The findings given by the Tribunal are sound and rational. It is based on the factual matrix. Issue, in our opinion, since is properly decided, no interference is called for. 12. Third issue concerns with the addition of Rs.9.10 lakhs being income of HPCL pump. CIT(Appeals) set aside the order by accepting the contention of the assessee and the Tribunal noted that this income of Rs.9.10 lakhs was making imprest payment and the resultant asset i.e imprest money was assessed to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the Apex Court given in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 82 ITR 363 as well as in the case of S.R. Koshtivs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 765, it held that the interest in books of accounts were not relevant for allowing an expenses which was even otherwise allowable to the assessee. The Tribunal noted all these findings of CIT(Appeals) as well as the fact that there was one discrepancy found whereby the assessee instead of debiting this amount in profit and loss account had debited the same in balance sheet, which was recoverable from HPCL Petrol Pump. As the Revenue could not bring any material to reflect that the diesel oil expenses were already debited in profit and loss account of the assessee, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
