9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urrendered income of ₹ 1,60,00,000/-. The Tribunal confirmed the Assessing Officer’s view that by preparing the profit and loss account in a particular manner, the assessee had attempted to circumvent the undertaking given in the said letter. The Tribunal also agreed that there was voluminous incriminating material found during the survey and by surrendering the said amount, the assessee had the benefit of having the further enquiry shut. The view taken by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. The amount of ₹ 1,60,00,000/- had been surrendered for the first half of the year. The assessee itself showed a profit of the said amount of ₹ 10.76 lacs and therefore added the same to the surrende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue and dismissing the assessee s cross objections. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The appellant contends that the following substantial questions of law arise in this case:- A) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified in reversing a well versed order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,75,832/- on account of surrender during the survey under section 133A without appreciating the true intention of appellant in making the impugned surrender and without appreciating the trite law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. S.Khader Khan Son, 79, DTR, 184 (SC) that no addition can be made on the basis of statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the fact that the impugned loans were duly returned in future with the impugned interest through banking channel which findings of IT^AT are perverse and against trite law? D) Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is perverse and deserves to be set aside? Re: Question-A 3. On 07.09.2006, a survey was conducted in the assessee s premises. During the survey, the assessee surrendered a sum of ₹ 1,60,00,000/- on account of the discrepancies found during the survey. By an undated letter, the appellant stated that during the survey certain loose papers/documents were impounded and that there may be discrepancies in the documents or loose papers. The letter further stated that in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 1,60,00,000/- had been surrendered for the first half of the year. The assessee itself showed a profit of the said amount of ₹ 10.76 lacs and therefore added the same to the surrendered amount of ₹ 1,60,00,000/-. It is to say the least a possible approach to the matter . The same does not raise a substantial question of law. Re: Question-B 5. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had advanced certain amount to the partners which were not for the business purposes. The assessee had also borrowed unsecured loans from various persons on interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 6. The assessee claimed to have received the amounts from 12 parties. The Assessing Officer issued summons to these parties and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only ₹ 82,000/- per annum. There was no explanation as to how she had suddenly obtained ₹ 3,00,000/-. In this manner, the Tribunal also analyzed the case of the other alleged lenders. 9. This was an appreciation of the facts of the case. We are unable to say that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse or unsustainable. 10. Question-B is, therefore, answered against the assessee. Re: Question-C 11. The answer to this question follows the answer to question-B. It is answered against the assessee. Re: Question-D 12. In view of what we have held earlier, this question is obviously against the assessee. The order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. 13. The appeal is, therefore, dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
