9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsolve him from failing to disclosed it in the first instance. The same reasoning would apply for the other amount of ₹ 31,29,880/-. So far as the assessee’s explanation that some of the entries pertained to expenditure goes, the AO observed that the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts and produced any supporting document. His evidence was endorsed by the CIT (A). The CIT(A), however, took note of all the circumstances and confined the relief to the extent that the assessee had sought and justified. The ITAT’s decision, which has merely stated the CIT(A)’s finding and does not contain any reasoning, appears to be guided by the decision on the assessment of other years. Furthermore, the ITAT was conscious of the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of ₹ 31,29,880/- and further amount of ₹ 16,07,240/-. After adding these amounts, the AO reassessed the income on regular basis bringing them to tax under Section 68 on the ground that this amount was the assessee s income from undisclosed sources. The assessee s appeal was partly allowed restricting to net profit rate of 5% applied on the amount declared under Section 44AF, i.e. ₹ 2,36,856/-. The ITAT also accepted the assessee s contention and rejected the Revenue s appeal. After re-accounting the entire facts and circumstances and extracting the findings of the CIT(Appeals), the impugned order concludes as follows: 7. The aggrieved assessee carried the assessment order in appeal before the Id. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately held that the amount of ₹ 2,87,403/-was only assessable from undisclosed business. No other material was brought on record by the Revenue to substantiate its version, therefore, we find no infirmity in the stand of the Id. CIT(A). Therefore, it is upheld. 8. However, keeping in view the totality of facts and the past history of the assessee, we are making it clear that our above decision may not be quoted as a precedent, as the assessee is expected to maintain its books of sale and cooperate with the department. With this observation, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is upheld. 9. So far as the cross-objection raised by the assessee regarding issuance / service of notice is concerned, it was not pressed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other amount of ₹ 31,29,880/-. So far as the assessee s explanation that some of the entries pertained to expenditure goes, the AO observed that the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts and produced any supporting document. His evidence was endorsed by the CIT (A). The CIT(A), however, took note of all the circumstances and confined the relief to the extent that the assessee had sought and justified. 6. In our opinion, the ITAT s decision, which has merely stated the CIT(A) s finding and does not contain any reasoning, appears to be guided by the decision on the assessment of other years. Furthermore, the ITAT was conscious of the fact that this decision favouring the assessee was perhaps unsupportable in law, as is ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
