9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in assessment proceeding. The ITO did not accept the explanation and added the amounts as income from undisclosed source represented by unexplanation cash. The Dy. CIT(A) accepted the explanation of assessee regarding Rs. 4,450 and deleted addition of that amount. He did not accept explanation of assessee regarding Rs. 40,000 and confirmed the addition of said amount. The assessee is in appeal before us and in the nine grounds in memo of appeal addition of Rs. 40,000 is challenged. The substance of these grounds is that explanation of assessee should have been accepted. 4. At the time of hearing of the appeal the assessee raised additional grounds in which point urged in substance is that addition could not have been made in assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first appellate authority. The subject-matter of appeal should not be confused with the ground raised. The subject-matter of appeal may be capable of challenge on various grounds, some of which might have been raised and some may not have been raised before the first appellate authority. Out of those which were raised before first appellate authority, some may have been dealt with and some may not have been dealt with by that authority. The decision of the first appellate authority on the subject-matter would be an implied decision on all matters which are raised and raised and which could have been raised, whether dealt with or not. The mere fact that a ground had not been raised though it could be raised in support of the relief sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o discuss other decisions of which attention has been drawn on behalf of assessee viz. Arundhati Balkrishna vs. CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Guj) 85 : (1982) 138 ITR 245 (Guj), Swastic Textile Co. Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Guj) 7: (1984) 150 ITR 155 (Guj) and Madhu Jayanti P. Ltd vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (Cal) 1 : (1985) 154 ITR 277 (Cal). 8. In the present case, subject-matter of appeal before first appellate authority was addition of Rs. 40,000 as income from undisclosed sources, being unexplained cash found during search. The subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal is also the same addition of Rs. 40,000. The assessee pleaded before first appellate authority that explanation should have been accepted and addition should be deleted. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter and has been raised on the basis of admitted facts. On the facts of this case, the principle laid down by Bombay High Court in the above case is not applicable. For the same reasons, the principle laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal referred to by the learned Departmental Representative is not applicable. 10. On the additional grounds, parties were heard. The learned Departmental Representative could not dispute the legal position regarding the assessment year in which the amount could be added. The cash was found on a date which fell in financial year 1981-82 and as such in view of express provision in s. 69A of the Act, the amount in question could be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year 1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
