9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellant. Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order dated 31.5.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-I, Delhi in ITA No. 1692/Del/2005 for assessment year 1996-97, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law: i) " Whether on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the assesses has purchased Fixed Deposit Receipts in a Bank during a particular assessment year, proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act can be initiated without recording a specific finding that these investments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented saving of the assessee was rejected. The addition has been upheld by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed: "We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. In this case, the entire dispute revolves around as to whether or not the assesses has satisfactorily explained the investment made in the FDRs of Rs.1,50,000/- each on 9.6.95 and 14.8.95. The explanation for the source of the funds is ostensibly the availability of cash in hand with the assessee as at the beginning of the previous year under consideration i.e. 1.4.95. According to the assessee, the said sum has been carried over from the earlier year. The AO has noted that as on 1.4.95, the assessee was only 19 years old and was not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the immediate source and nature of the cash credit stood explained and held that the amount obviously has been in existence as on 30.3.66. Therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee for treating the credit as unexplained in the assessment year 1967-68. In that case the entire issue rested on the fact that the Tribunal accepted the explanation to the extent that the amount was in existence as on 30.3.66 though it did not accept the fact that it belonged to the wife of the assessee. However, as a natural corollary, the Tribunal deduced that it could not have been earned in the accounting period relevant to asstt. Year 1967-68 was in this background the Hon'ble High Court opined that where explanation that the entry i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee, it was observed that the assessee could not have any source of income and the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court in that case that addition was not called for, was upheld. 5. It was also submitted that the investment in the form of fixed deposit receipts for the assessment year 1997-98 could not be included in the income of the year 1996-97. This aspect has also been duly considered by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal and the findings recorded cannot be held to be perverse. 6. We do not find any merit in the submission. Whether in a given situation, case was made out for making addition of income which could not be explained by the assessee, was a question of fact. In the present case, the findings having be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
