9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as CIT was of the view that once the transaction involving such huge amount has taken place, it ought to have been reflected in one form or the other in the books of account and non-disclosure of the same would enable them to treat it as unexplained investment – but, the Tribunal took the view that the purchase of groundnut of the value of ₹ 17,23,400/- is part of ₹ 30,80,270/- for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT (Per Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The respondent is a proprietor of M/s. Bhagawathi Enterprises, which is mainly a dealer in groundnut seeds. For the assessment year 1989-90, the returns were submitted on 06.09.89. A sum of ₹ 50,000/- was shown as total income. A search was conducted on 18.08.1989 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act). Based up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 17,23,400/-, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. Through order, dated 29.02.1996, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the respondent filed I.T.A.No.917 of 1996 before the Hyderabad Bench A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal together with two similar appeals referable to subsequent assessment years were allowed by the Tribunal through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition made on the aforesaid account even in the absence of a finding that the sales are referable to the accounted for purchases of groundnut seeds? (b) Whether the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in this behalf are based on material on record? The controversy is about a sum of ₹ 17,23,400/-. In the books of account, the said amount was not reflected. The source of information for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount cannot be the subject matter of the taxation for the second time. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out that the reason assigned by the Tribunal is not factually correct. Once it emerges that the amount of ₹ 17,23,400/- is nothing but part of larger figure, which was brought under the purview of the Act, there was no basis for inclusion of the same in a differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
