9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, which was a private company controlled by the recipient of the amount. The amount was available with the assessee itself and payments were made representing expenditure which was never incurred. The amount was, thus, available with the assessee as undisclosed income which justified additions made by the Assessing Officer – order of ITAT upheld - 489 of 2009 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 25-8-2009 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and DAYA CHAUDHARY, JJ Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Delay condoned, subject to just exceptions. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against order dated 22.9.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, it has been contended that on facts as well as in law, the Assessing Officer was not at all justified in making the additions. 5.3. In addition to above submissions, the Ld. A.R. has produced Photostat copy of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 1991-92 and has invited my attention that the chits being run by the appellant have all been accepted by the department as genuine. It has further been contended that the chits are continuing process because the same get matured and finally settled after substantial period of time. With this background, it has been argued that the receipt of money too from the persons who have contributed to the chits was not in doubt." 4. The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR on facts as well as in law." 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Contention raised is that case for piercing the corporate veil was not made out and additions, if at all, should have been made in the hands of the Director. As far as the assessee company is concerned, the payments had been duly made. The amount received by the Director whose identity is known would be unexplained income of the said Director. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. The Tribunal has found that the amount representing payment to chit holders was in fact paid to Suresh Chand Gupta, a Director of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
