9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly sustained the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax treating Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment ?" The basic facts giving rise to the question is that the assessee was partner of the firm, M/s. Krishna Steel Industries, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lain the transaction again. This time, the explanation given by the assessee was that one Muralilal Kedia, son of S. R. Kedia, who was previously the general manager of Orissa Cement Limited in which concern the husband of the petitioner was also serving as an officer, had approached A. P. Bajoria for a loan and the latter arranged the loan from L. N. Sharaf by standing surety. It was further stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was also signed by Arjun Prasad Bajoria on behalf of Bajoria Engineering Co. and the story of the loan having been taken from L. N. Sharaf came later when Arjun Prasad Bajoria made denial of having advanced any loan to the assessee. It was noted that L. N. Sharaf had filed a return of his income after four years of the due date. The shortage of capital of L. N. Sharaf to lend Rs. 50,000 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Tribunal is not sustainable, inter alia, because the same is based on non-examination of Muralilal Kedia who was subsequently examined in the penalty proceeding and which has terminated in favour of the assessee. The reassessment order, however, shows that nothing had prevented, the assessee from examining Muralilal Kedia in the proceeding, and if she did not do so, we cannot find fault with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case the finding relating to the penalty proceeding. We are, however, not persuaded in accepting this submission since, according to us, the finding arrived at in an assessment proceeding cannot be assailed on the basis of the view taken in the penalty proceeding. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee. B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
