9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their orders is well reasoned, giving complete reasons. The Court is, therefore, not persuaded to interfere with their concurrent findings. On a careful perusal of the entire record, the Court is of the view that there was justification for the Department invoking Section 147 of the IT Act. The Court finds no reason to interfere. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 69 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2022 - The Chief Justice And Justice R.K. Pattanaik For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Mohanty, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel (IT) ORDER 1. The present appeal arises from an order dated 30th April, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) dismissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regarding disallowance of ₹ 2,76,167/- under Section 40A (3) of the IT Act. 4. Indeed in the impugned the ITAT has recorded as under: 2. In the appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. For that the disallowance of ₹ 2,76,167 u/s.40A(3) as made by the learned A.O. is improper and unjustified and the learned Commissioner should not have sustained the action of the A.O. 2. For that the addition of ₹ 7,01,000/- as sustained by the learned Commissioner is highly unjustified and uncalled for. 3. For that the proceedings initiated u/S.147 are not proper. 4. For that in any view of the case the assessment as made is otherwise bad-in-law. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marriage (cash) gift of ₹ 50,000/-, marriage (gold) gift of ₹ 1,15,000/- and postal interest of ₹ 35,000/- receipt from husband ₹ 2 lakhs, own earnings during 1990-91 to 2002-03 amounting to ₹ 66,000/-, customary gifts received during 1990-91 to 2002-03 ₹ 70,000/-. In the impugned order, the ITAT has further reduced the addition to ₹ 5,01,000. 8. Mr. Raj Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant - Assessee submitted that even if the explanation offered by the Appellant was not satisfactory the authorities should have applied their discretion properly and ought not to have made the addition mechanically. He further submitted that the addition was made on surmises and conjectures despite the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
