9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the above facts and circumstances, when the learned CIT(A) has deleted addition made by the A.O. made on account of undisclosed investment and when the same has been confirmed by the learned tribunal, it cannot be said that the learned CIT(A) and learned tribunal have committed any error. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 3,37,58,8900/- on account of undisclosed investment made by Assessing Officer? 2.00. That the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 declaring total income at ₹ 1,58,290/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee shown income from business / profession. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased along with one Bharatbhai Patel land bearing Surv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... das Patel, there was no material that any amount of ₹ 3,43,00,000/- was paid by the assessee and as there was no material available with the A.O. to come to the conclusion that the assessee paid ₹ 3,43,00,000/- for purchase of the aforesaid land and considering the fact that the even the land was jointly owned and purchased by the assessee with Bharatbhai Patel and no such addition was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land, however, as such, the assessee had in fact, purchased the land. Apart from that even there was no material with the A.O. to form an opinion that ₹ 3,43,00,000/- was received by the said Kalidas Patel. It is required to be noted that the A.O. made additions of ₹ 3,37,58,8900/- on the basis of material seized / found from the premises of said Kalidas patel. However, as observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
