9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.12.2007. The short question of law, which has been raised in this appeal is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in adding a sum of Rs. 12,20,000/-, alleged to have been received by the appellant-assessee as gift as his income under Section 69-A of the Act after deleting the said addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) under Section 68 of the Act. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-assessee is a partner in the firm M/s S.J. Transformers and has inducted capital of Rs. 12,20,000/- in the relevant assessment year 2001-02. The assessment of the said year 2001-02 was completed and proceedings for re-assessment w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is aggrieved by such addition under Section 69-A of the Act that the appellant-assessee has preferred this appeal. The submission of Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee is that all through the case of the parties is as to whether the aforesaid amount alleged to have been received by the appellant-assessee is liable to be added under Section 68 of the Act and the question of addition under Section 69-A was never there. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in making addition under Section 69-A of the Act. Sri Piyush Agarwal admits that before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, the dispute was as regarding the addition of the amount alleged to have been received in gift by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 69-A of the Act. It may be worth noting that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that "it is clear that under the provisions of Section 68, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT (Appeals) cannot be sustained, meaning thereby that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) committed an error in adding the aforesaid amount in the income of the appellant-assessee under Section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under Section 69-A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law. Accordingly, we answer the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
