9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions ought not to have been made. - Decided in favour of the Assessee - ITA 1/2005, ITA 11/2005 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Chander Shekhar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Manu Monga, Advocate ORDER 1. The Revenue has filed these two appeals against the common order dated 26th February 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi in ITA Nos. 964 and 965/Delhi/2002 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. 2. Both appeals were admitted by separate orders dated 18th February 2005. As far as ITA No. 11 of 2005 is concerned, which pertained to AY 1993-94, the question of law framed was: Whether in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lia that: Thus total unexplained investment in the booking of vehicles in fictitious names comes to ₹ 4,35,75,000/-. Apart from the foregoing investment in the form of booking amounts, the assessee has also earned premium @ ₹ 20,000/- per vehicle. This comes to ₹ 52,20,000/-. Accordingly, the investment of ₹ 4,35,75,000/- plus premium of ₹ 52,20,000/- amounting in all to ₹ 4,87,95,000/- is taken as assessee's investment from undisclosed sources and income not disclosed to the department and accordingly added back to the total income of the assessee. 6. As far as AY 1994-95 was concerned, initially by an order dated 26th March 1997 the AO made an addition of ₹ 50,65,547 on the above ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. As far as the Assessee's appeal pertaining to AY 1994-95, the CIT (A) by a separate order of the same date observed that the addition of ₹ 12,33,048 by the AO was most reasonable and, therefore, upheld it. 9. In the impugned order the ITAT first dealt with ITA 964/Del/2002 filed by the Assessee for the AY 1993-94 and held: There is no iota of evidence that the assessee has booked the car in its name or any premium has been earned by the Assessee on sale of car. We have already discussed in detail that without any material or evidence no addition can be made against a person in whose hands the department wants to make the additions. Therefore, for same reasoning we delete this addition also. 10. Following the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
