9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in reversing the orders of CIT(A) and, thus, wrongly confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the confirmation filed by the sister-in-law confirming the outstanding of the impugned amount and also not summoning her to verify the facts, so that so, the orders of the ITAT is illegal and perverse ?" 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the income of the appellant-assessee was wholly perverse and unjustified as the sister-in-law Smt. Jasraj Pal Ghuman had stated before the revenue authorities that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was still due to be paid and the learned counsel in support thereof, has also placed particulars of the handwritt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result of the search operations conducted at the premises of the assessee, having an individual status, order was passed under Section 158BC (c) on 26.02.2002 by the CIT, Jalandhar and while making other additions, Rs. 5,00,000/- have been added as undisclosed investment made to acquire the rights of his sister-in-law in the family property. Total undisclosed income for the block period has been found to be Rs. 55,97,070/- against the return income of only sum of Rs. 3,82,000/-. 7. The appellant assailed the order in Appeal before the CIT (A) Ludhiana who vide his order dated 21.02.2003 set aside the findings of the Assessing Officer with regard to the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- based on confirmation dated 24.01.2002 sent by Smt. Jasraj Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he family settlement above, the payment was required to be made by 30.06.1992 to the sister-in-law Smt. Jasraj Pal Ghuman. A receipt was found by the revenue authorities during search which reflected that Smt. Jasraj Pal Ghuman has stated that she has received the amount and no further payment is due from the appellant assessee. In consequence of the payment having been made, the possession of the share of her property was handed over to the assessee. The CIT (Appeal), however, proceeded to rely on the certificate issued by Smt. Jasraj Pal Ghuman after the search was conducted to state that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was still due from the assessee. However, the Income Tax Appellate Authority has reached to the conclusion that such certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act by the Tribunal that the legal expenses incurred by the Assessee were for protecting its business and that the expenses were incurred after 18th November, 1994. There is no reason to reverse this finding of fact particularly since nothing has been shown to us to conclude that the finding of fact was perverse in any manner whatsoever. That apart, if the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal were to be set aside, a specific question regarding a perverse finding of fact ought to have been framed by the High Court. The Revenue did not seek the framing of any such question. In this regard, reference may be made to K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ; [2001] 247 ITR 178 (SC) wherein it was observed: "The High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
