9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on mere assumption and not on any material recovered during search and seizure. The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that addition cannot be made merely on presumption that assessee had earned undisclosed income and incurred expenses outside books of account, which need no interference being finding of fact, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed . X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record? (5) Whether the ITAT is legally justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the authorities below in the absence of fresh material placed before it?" 3. Income Tax Appeal No. 81 of 2003 was admitted on 15.01.2014 on substantial question of law nos. 1 and 2, which are hereasunder:- "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT, New Delhi was justified in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O. for ₹ 3,05,58,009/- u/s 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring that matter related to relevant additions made during assessment for the same block A.Ys. 1997 to 2003-04 was subjudice before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which has also been admitted by the Hon'ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... block period and estimated the same at ₹ 51,44,968/-. This, however, was done by the Assessing Officer without giving credit to the income already returned by the assessee. 6. Against the assessment order an appeal was filed before CIT (Appeals), who on 13.08.2007 deleted the addition of ₹ 51,44,968/- on the ground that provisions of Section 44 AD were not applicable to the facts of the case. However, one addition in respect of illegal payments of commission aggregating to ₹ 5,88,500/- in addition to levy of surcharge, credit of pre-paid taxes etc. was confirmed. 7. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the ITAT against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 5,88,500/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, two appeals were filed before the ITAT, one by the assessee, ITA No. 26 (Del) of 2011 and the other ITA No. 28 (Del) of 2011 by the Department. The Tribunal on 31.10.2011 allowed the appeal of the assessee while dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that where the income had already been assessed or return of income has been filed, that income cannot be taken as undisclosed income. The Tribunal also recorded a categorical finding that Assessing Officer instead of working out undisclosed income, as per the provisions of Section 158 BD had totalled up amount mentioned in various annexures, which according to the assessee are part of the contract work done by him. No evidence was found to suggest that the assessee had been indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
