9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 1989-90, while Appeal No. 664 related to the assessment year 1990-91. In the present appeal the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding Appeal No. 663 only have been assailed, and that also with respect to ground No. 1 only whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal the Revenue, and set aside the deletion of the amount purportedly on account of unexplained investment on the plot bearing No. 27D. 3 The appeal came to be listed on July 19, 2002, on which date notice was ordered to be issued to show cause. Then, since nobody appeared on behalf of the Revenue, on August 28, 2002, the appeal was admitted. How ever, in the order of admission no substantial question of law was formulated. Then, the matter came up on Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared capital gains derived from such sale which was assessed in the hands of Zakir Hussain. The learned Tribunal has found that the balance amount of Rs. 68,400 was deposited vide receipt dated March 31, 1989, in the name of the assessee, and that there is no evidence! material on record to show that this payment of Rs. 68,400 was made by Zakir Hussain, and that the entry of withdrawal of Rs. 68,400 from thebank by Zakir Hussain available at page 3 of the paper book of the evenue relied upon by the assessee is dated March 8, 1990, and, there fore, this withdrawal obviously cannot relate back to the deposit made on March 31, 1989, therefore, it was found that the Assessing Officer has rightly made this addition in the hands of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find from the statement of account copy whereof is shown to us is that the amount was withdrawn by cheque issued in the name of U.I.T. itself being cheque No. 453 dated March 6, 1989, and does not appear to be a case of cash withdrawal by Zakir Hussain, and payment to U.I.T., and it appears that the cheque was given on March 6, 1989, which was encashed on March 8, 1989, and after encashment in due course the receipt was issued on March 31, 1989. Thus, the whole edifice assumed by the learned Tribunal is clearly a misconception arising out of the misreading. Copy of the bank account is already there before the learned Tribunal. 10 Thus, the question is answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue. 11 The appeal is acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
