9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : S. C. ,Dhananjai Awasthi For the Respondent : A. Bansal,S. K. Garg ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi for the appellant-department. Sri Ashish Bansal appears for respondent-assessee. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) is directed against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal , 'B' Bench, Lucknow dated 30.09.2008 in ITA No. 164 (Luc)/08, for the Assessment Year 2001-02. 3. The assessee-appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law, for consideration:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is, prima facie, evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the said evidence, it can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. 5. The AO found that in all the bank accounts, there were circular transactions. The moneys were deposited either in cash or otherwise and a cheque was issued either on the same day or within one or two days. The details are given in a chart as follows:- . Name Address Amount (Rs.) Date of deposit Date of issuing cheque Basant Kr. Agarwal, 128/225, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur 150000/- 19.10.2000 23.10.2000 Manoj Kr. Agarwal, 36/31G, Ram Mohan Ka Hata, Kanpur 1500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn under Section 68 of the Act. The addition of Rs.16 lacs made by the Assessing Officer was thus deleted by CIT (A). The ITAT upheld the order of CIT (A). 8. Sri Ashish Bansal learned counsel appearing for respondent assessee submits that there was sufficient evidences on record that loans were repaid by the assessee and thus the amount could not be added to the income of the assessee. 9. We find that the Tribunal made a sweeping observation that the bank statements were filed evidencing repayments. The Tribunal has not discussed and found whether repayments were made in cash or otherwise, or whether the entire amount were repaid. The test laid down by Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (Supra) does not appear to be satisfied. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
