9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no need to interfere with the order passed by CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. - ITA Nos. 861 & 862/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2014 - Sri D. K Tyagi And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri P. L. Kureel, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : None ORDER Per : D. K. Tyagi, Judicial Member:- Both these appeals belong to same assessee and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that notice for today's hearing was served upon him which is evident from the acknowledgment placed on record. So we proceeded to decide these appeals after hearing Ld. DR. 3. ITA No. 861/Ahd/2011 is against quantum addition bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making the addition of Rs.10,24,020/- u/s, 68 of the Act. instead of making addition u/s.68 of the Act. in the case of depositors. 8. The appellant prays that the addition of Rs.10,24,020 made u/s.68 of the Act. may please be deleted in toto. 5. This is second inning of litigation by the assessee before us. 6. Brief facts of the case are that during assessee proceedings AO found that assessee has taken loans/deposits from 23 persons of various amounts totaling to Rs. 10,18,560/-. To verify the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions assessee was given several opportunities. Certain documents were filed by the assessee in support of his claim that creditors were having source of advancing these advanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... today's hearing was duly served upon her, it appears that she does not have anything to support the grounds taken by her before us, and therefore we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 9. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed. Now coming to ITA No. 862/Ahd/2011 10. This appeal relates to confirming of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,60,000/- on the addition of Rs. 10,24,020/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 11. Facts in this case are similar to ITA NO. 861/Ahd/2011. AO during the assessment proceedings levied penalty of Rs. 3,60,000/- on the addition made by him u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 10,24,020/-. When the matter was carried before Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
