9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It raises the following question for decision: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of addition of Rs.1,82,988 made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on account of income from undisclosed sources introduced by the firm i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority. The Tribunal after consideration of the matter has found that the partners had an agricultural income of Rs.3,02,500. The income pertains to the holding which belongs to the partners and their family members in their individual capacity. The assessee-firm had shown the income "in its account books, in the capital account of the individual partners-Shri Biker Singh and Shri Baltej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that Bikar Singh and Baltej Singh, partners of the assessee-firm had 45 acres of land. The average income shall be Rs.4,500 per acre. On this basis it has been concluded that the partners could have contributed the amount to the account of the firm. This amount could not have been treated as the undisclosed income of the firm. No evidence has been pointed out which may show that the findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered against the individual assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. In our view, this decision is of no assistance to the Revenue in the present case.
No other point has been raised.
The case raises no substantial question of law. The findings of fact are not shown to be perverse or even wrong. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
