9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and in violation of the principles of natural justice in not considering the submissions made and the materials placed before it in the proper perspective and proceeding to pass the order by not accepting the retraction of admission made by the appellant? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in not considering the submissions made and was right in upholding the addition of unexplained investment in SIDCO? T.C.(A)No.866 of 2014: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Rs. 5,63,263/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who, by order dated 02.12.2008 deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 32,51,872/- in respect of purchase of land at Ariyanoor but upheld the addition made with regard to investment in SIDCO land. 4. Challenging the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition made with regard to the investment in SIDCO land, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.258/Mds/2009. The Revenue has also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.374/Mds/2009 challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. It is thereafter, the assessee had changed his mind and placed reliance on certain accounts. The plea of the assessee to show the source of borrowing of funds was rejected as an after thought. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted below: "6. In ITA No.258/2009, the assessee has assailed the addition confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) with regard to the investment of '5,63,263/- made in SIDCO land. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire investment in purchase of SIDCO land has been explained. A sum of '1.00 Lakh was withdrawn from Allahabad Bank on 10-11-2013 from the individual account of Shri P.Madhurajan, another sum of 4.00 Lakhs was withdrawn from Canara Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different stand before the authorities below and before us to cover up the investments made in SIDCO land. There is no merit in the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same is dismissed." 10. We find that this is a question of fact, which the appellant/assesee should have pursued before the Original Authority or before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, after examining the issue threadbare, declined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) principally on the ground that no reliability could be placed on the submissions made by the appellant/assessee, who had taken different stands before the Authorities below. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 11. In I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This fact is not disputed by the assessee. The Tribunal also looked into the agreement dated 07.02.2001 at the instance of the assessee and came to the conclusion that even as per the translated copy of the agreement, he did not show that it is in respect of developed residential plots. The assessee tried to explain the difference in value between February, 2001 agreement and the present one as a distress sale, but that was, on facts, found to be not correct by the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the clear conclusion that the Assessing Officer has rightly made additions on this account. 12. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the appellant wanted to rely on the statement of Smt.K.Vanaja, who is said to be the partner of C.Balan. In he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the money on the cancellation of the sale agreement. Her statement, which we extracted above, throws more light on the present case that is was not a clear transaction. The entire transaction was shrouded in mystery and the Assessing Officer has correctly made additions. 14. All the issues raised by the appellant are pure questions of fact, which the Assessing Officer had thoroughly analysed and gone into in detail. The Tribunal has analysed it threadbare and we find it to be in order. Hence, being pure questions of fact, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We find no merits in the above Tax Case (Appeals). 15. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
