9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. Therefore, as facts were dealt with in detail by the Tribunal and no cogent evidence could be adduced by the assessee in support of its claim, in view of judgment Tirupati Trading Co. (1999 (8) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA High Court), the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 41 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2015 - Soumitra Pal And Ishan Chandra Das, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Ananda Sen, Adv., Mr M Gupta, Adv. and Mr A Samanta, Adv For the Respondent : Mr M P Agarwal, Adv JUDGMENT Soumitra Pal, J. The Court : This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 preferred against the order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 9,000/-. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant filed return of income showing the total income of ₹ 78,208/-. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the appellant. The appellant appeared for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and filed details. On 30th March, 2001, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order under section 143(3) assessing the total income at ₹ 5,17,330/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata mainly on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire of the building or in the bank account etc. We find that CIT (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by merely observing that the A.O. should not have drawn any hasty conclusion on non-business use of the premises merely because the assessee had failed to produce any case of the trade licence etc. before him. In the facts of the case we hold that the assessee has failed to lead any evidence to suggest that the premises in question were ever used for its business purposes. Accordingly, we reverese the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the issue and allow the grounds of appeal of the Revenue for both the years. It is submitted by Mr.Ananda Sen, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that since documents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
