9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim with regard to miscellaneous receipts and also failed to maintain the true and correct account – Decided in favor of Revenue. - ITA No. 226/2007 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2013 - Dilip B Bhosale And B Manohar, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri.G Kamaladhar, for Sri.K V Aravind, Adv For the Respondent : By Sri. K R Prasad for M/s. K R Prasad Assts JUDGEMENT:- PER : B Manohar The Revenue preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the order dated 8-9-2006 made in IT(SS)A No.154/Bang/2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal for short) for the block assessment year from 1-4-1991 to 27-4-2001. 2. The respondent/assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority), contending that rejection of the claim of the assessee for set off Rs.31,95,000/- is contrary to law. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 28-09-2004 after considering the matter in detail rejected the appeal insofar as set off/reduction of a sum of Rs.31,95,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal, relying upon the earlier order passed by it in J.P.NARAYANASWAMY case made in IT (SS) A No.154/B/2004 allowed the appeal in part by its order dated 8-9-2006 and held that the mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified spirit they are not doing any business. Hence, the question of reduction of Rs.31,95,000/- from the undisclosed amount does not arise. No material has been produced before the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority with regard to parallel business. However, the Tribunal without considering all these aspects of the matter relying upon the earlier order dated 26-05-2005 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.152/B/2004 made in J.P.NARAYANASWAMY case, allowed the appeal in part, which is contrary to law. Further the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order dated 26-05-2005 in IT (SS) A No.152/B/2004 made in J.P.NARAYANASWAMY case in ITA No.3136/2005. The Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Tribunal without any material before it, has set aside the order solely on the basis of the earlier order made by it in IT(SS)A No.152/B/2004 and the said order was set aside by the court on an appeal filed by the revenue in ITA.No.3136/2005 dated 11-08-2011. The assessee has failed to produce any materials or evidence to support the claim with regard to miscellaneous receipts and also failed to maintain the true and correct account. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the set off allowed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee is set aside and the substantial question of law framed in this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
