9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not materialise or sale did not take place. Hence, CIT (Appeals) concluded that as on 25.03.2008 assessee possessed cash balance as per book a sum of ₹ 2,96,092/- and in that background, addition of ₹ 2,89,000/- came to be deleted. Since it was notice d after verification of books of account maintained by assessee that assessee had sufficient cash on hand, deletion made by CIT (Appeals) came to be affirmed by ITAT. Addition towards afforestation charges - Held that:- It came to be held by both the appellate authorities that though expenditure is financed by Sri Goutam Chand of M/s. Rajashree Minerals who had taken a mine on lease from assessee, they were recoverable from the assessee and their accounts also disclosed the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. After hearing the representative of the assessee, assessment order dated 21.12.2009 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer (for short AO ) whereunder AO disallowed certain claims made by the assessee or in other words, added the following: Add: (i) Undisclosed investment in Money lending as discussed in Para 4 above. - ₹ 35,50,00 (ii) Unexplained cash being UDI as discussed in para 6 above.- ₹ 2,89,000 (iii) Unexplained investment in Jewellary as discussed in para 7 above. -Rs. 10,13,626 (iv) Investment made in Agricultural land and Advances as discussed in para 8 above, being UDI -Rs. 13,45,200 (v) Deforestation charges Disallowed bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly so. Though respondent is served and represented, none appears. 5. Reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal, it is contended by Mr.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue that both the appellate authorities have erred in not appreciating the material which was available before Assessing Officer who had disallowed the claim of the assessee and deletion made by CIT (Appeals) is based on assumptions and presumptions. Hence, contending that orders of CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal being erroneous and contrary to factual aspects, substantial questions of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum would arise for consideration and he prays for framing said questions of law and answering the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of both the appellate authorities. It is not in dispute that at the time of search, a sum of ₹ 2,89,000/- cash was in possession of the assessee, out of which ₹ 2,50,000/- was seized. Assessee is owning 4 acres of agricultural land in HUF capacity and in the said account, book cash of ₹ 4,16,092/- has been reflected and this was also with the assessee. It was also noticed by CIT (Appeals) that an agreement to sell had been entered into by assessee and had received back ₹ 1,80,000/- as refund since said deal did not materialise or sale did not take place. Hence, CIT (Appeals) concluded that as on 25.03.2008 assessee possessed cash balance as per book a sum of ₹ 2,96,092/- and in that background, addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restation charges was rightly held as an expenditure not being enduring in nature and as such, it was treated as revenue expenditure. Though amount was paid by the assessee on 01.02.2007, it was booked as expenditure for the assessment year 2008- 09 since Forest Department has informed that demand draft furnished by assessee would be encashed by the Department only in case of approval is granted and in the event of non-approval of licence or non-renewal of licence, demand draft would be returned back and as such, liability having crystallised during financial year 2007-08, same was claimed by the assessee in the assessment year 2008-09. CIT (Appeals) noticed that as per clauses (vi) and (vii) in the agreement, second party namely, M/s. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial on record, as noticed herein above, Tribunal has rejected the claim of the revenue and has affirmed the order passed by CIT (Appeals). Findings recorded by both the appellate authorities are all questions of fact and there is no question of law involved in this appeal for being adjudicated by admitting the same and answering it. Hence, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for being admitted. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) Order dated 24.08.2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in ITA No.181/PNJ/2011 confirming the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore in Appeal No. 19/DCIT/CCI/BELGAUM/CIT(A)-VI, B L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
