9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Dr Rakesh Gutpa with Ms Poonam Ahuja and Ms Aarti Saini CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the block period 01.04.1995 to 18.03.2002. The appeal before the Tribunal had also been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 24.12.2004 The ground raised by the revenue before the tribunal was that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in deleting the addition of Rs 7,53,55,000/- made on account of entries recorded in two diaries seized from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the notings relating to appointments for discussion, as indicated in the said paragraph, were explained as having nothing to do with the actual transactions. Paragraph 10 refers to notings which indicate telephone numbers and are not related to actual transactions. Paragraph 11 of the impugned order indicates that each of the items in respect of which queries had been raised by the Assessing Officer were responded to by the assessee. There were 36 such items. 3. According to the revenue, not all the entries have been explained in the sense that the assessee has not produced any material to show that the transactions themselves had not materialised. The plea raised by the revenue was that a pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no corroborative or direct evidence to presume that the notings / jottings had materialised into transactions giving rise to income not disclosed in the regular books of accounts. 4. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and agreed with the view taken by the latter that the assessee was liable to tax only on those receipts which had been proved to be income in the hands of the recipient. As a result thereof, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that the same were based on valid and cogent materials placed on record and also produced before the Assessing officer during the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
