9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was no reason assigned as to why the profit and loss account of unaccounted transactions of the assessee cannot be believed to be true – also the AO also did not take into consideration the explanations tendered by the assessee vide letters dated 10.12.2008 and 29.12.2008 - even, the working of the peak based on the seized diary given by the assessee for the concerned AYs was also overlooked by the AO and there was no reason was assigned for the same - the CIT(A) rightly held that it would be just and proper, if, the income from the transactions recorded in the seized diary are determined on the basis of highest peak, as increased by the net profit of 5 per cent on the receipts and taxed accordingly, for the relevant assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proven nexus between the receipts and the payments and hence could not have been applied to the assessee s case as the seized papers do not evidence any such nexus? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(Appeal) s decision that the peak of unaccounted receipts and payments only should be taxed ignoring the fact that since there is no nexus between the assessee s unaccounted receipts and unaccounted payments, they liable to be separately taxed under the deeming provisions of section 69 and 69C of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in merely confirming the arbitrary and ad hoc esti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized papers could be validly taxed in the hands of the assessee. Mr. Parikh, further, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that peak theory pre-supposes immediate and proved nexus between the receipts and the payments, and hence, the ITAT erred in confirming the CIT(A) s finding that assessee should be given benefit of peak credit. 6. We have heard Mr. Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant- Revenue, and perused the material on record. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, while appreciating a document, it is required to be considered in its entirety and it cannot be considered in part. In the case on hand, while appreciating the papers / documents, which according to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
