9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment for the block period - assessee had already disclosed its transaction - AO is wrong in treating the impugned amount as undisclosed income for the block period – order of tribunal is correct - additions deleted - 1000 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2006 - P.D.DINAKARAN and P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA JJ. Mr. J. Naresh Kumar, for the Appellant. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out on 18.08.1999. In the course of the raid, several incriminating documents including the lease agreements were found and seized. As the assessee could not establish the existence of leased assets, it had withdrawn the depreciation claimed in respect of the lease transactions with various concerns. Hence the Assessing Officer completed the block assessment for the block period 01.04.1989 to 07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal ("Tribunal" in short). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the C.I.T.(A). Hence the present tax case by the Revenue. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Returns filed for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99 did not show any income specifically admitted as subsidy and as such, the receipt of the subsidy came into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.11,25,000/- per year and hence the sum of Rs.45,00,000/- was reduced and the balance sum of Rs.67,50,000/- was considered as undisclosed income assessable for the block period. In this case, since the assessee itself had offered its income for the assessment year 1996-97 which was subsequently reversed and claimed by way of deduction, it could not be said that the assessee would not have di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed income for the block period. The concurrent findings given by both the authorities below are based on valid materials and evidence. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), the Supreme Court held that whenever there is a concurrent finding by the authorities below, no interference should be called for by the High Court. Under these circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
