9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which allowed the assessee's appeal. It is urged that the impugned judgment discloses errors which led to a substantial question of law pertaining to the interpretation of Section 292 (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the materials seized and inference drawn by the income tax authorities in the assessee's case. The assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rences, amounts were added. The assessee was given the benefit of deductions actually claimed in his books towards his expenses. Consequently, grossing up of liability on account of TDS was also added by the AO. The third head on which the AO added amount was the sum of Rs.28,28,000/- said to be the loss of interest income due to the advance given to the assessee's sister concern. The Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue relied upon the materials in this regard and also stated that on account of Section 69 (c) read with Section 292 (c), the presumption logically drawn had to be sustained. He also pointed out to the Commissioner of Appeals' decision which has substantially upheld the AO's order and that the Tribunal fell into error in disturbing this finding . Whilst there can be no dispute about the Revenue's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to the questionnaire which was circulated in this case, the conclusions drawn would have found support in law. In the absence of these, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the AO - and that of the CIT to the extent that they confirm them - were conjectural and not based on any material. In these circumstances, the presumptions which the Revenue falls back upon under Section 292C d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
