9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs. 1 lakh, which was spread over by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) over a period of three years?" - Question as to what should be in such cases added or deleted, is a matter of discretion and based on the facts of each case. In this view, if the Tribunal came to a conclusion that Rs. 55,677 is not a sum to be added and if added by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particularly when the assessee had consented to the addition of Rs. 1 lakh, which was spread over by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) over a period of three years?" The question arises on these facts. For the assessment year in question, the dispute arose in regard to the actual expenditure incurred by an assessee in his building. There was some difference in the amount disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income-tax (Appeals). In appeal, there was some additional inquiry conducted. The assessee submitted some bills amounting to Rs. 1,62,468 for adjustment saying that this liability was not taken note of by the DVO. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) then went into all the mathematical calculations and also took into consideration certain concessions made by the assessee through his lawye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As observed supra, the only question involved in this case is in relation to the actual amount spent in construction by the assessee. This question had assumed significance because of some difference between the figure shown by the assessee and that shown by the DVO. It is in this course of debate, the Tribunal on the facts came to a conclusion that a sum of Rs. 55,677 should not have been adde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
