9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.09.2009 raising following question for our consideration: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,00,736/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A) representing unexplained difference in stock (excess stock) without appreciating the fact that it is for the assessee to prove its evidence and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the assessee failed to provide the bank records despite sufficient time being granted. 4. The Tribunal, in further appeal, refers the orders of the revenue authorities and allowed the assessee's appeal making following observations: "9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. In the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount by assuming the same as unexplained investment made by the assessee during the year under consideration. The learned Commissioner or Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the above action of the learned assessing officer. We find that the assessee has furnished a plausible explanation before the learned Assessing Officer an the learned Assessing Officer has brought no material on record to justify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, delete the addition of ₹ 15,48,913/-. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the assessee in both the years under consideration is allowed". 5. Having thus perused the orders on record and having heard learned counsel for the revenue, we find that the Tribunal came to the factual finding in favour of the assessee and accepted the explanation of the assessee that the difference between th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
