9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income of the assessee for asst.yr. 1979-80 on the ground that this deposit did not fall in the 'previous year' for this year? 3. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining a totally new ground for deleting the addition of Rs. 10,000 Inasmuch as, in our opinion, none of the above said questions calls for reference, we are unable to accept the request of the concerned CIT. 2. The assessment year involved is 1979-80 for which the relevant 'previous year' ended on 31st March,1979. The assessee is a partnership firm duly executed under a deed of partnership dt.6th Jan.,1978. Its business is that of manufacturing of rice. The partnership was started w.e.f.1st Jan., 1978 and it was with that day that the books were also sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of Rs. 10,000 being the assessee's own unexplained investment as per detailed observation made by him in this regard in his order. 3. When the issue was carried by the assessee before AAC, he confirmed the said addition. 4. The assessee further came up before the Tribunal and the ld. counsel for the assessee while disputing the order of the AAC came forward with an additional contention that the said credit in question does not fall in the 'previous year' of the assessee relevant for the year under consideration. The Tribunal after recording the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in detail in paras 5 and 6 and those of the ld. departmental representative in para 7, accepted the additional contention of the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 in the earlier part of this order, indicates that the surrender was made as Prithi Singh had died, his son was afraid of coming before the ITO and in order to put an end to the litigation and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings the assessee came forward with the offer with condition of no penal action. Such offer having not been accepted by the ITO, was entitled on a finding of fact by the Tribunal in respect of this issue and, therefore, question No.1 as suggested by the assessee does not arise. 7. Coming to question No.2. It is strangely worded. The Tribunal on the facts recorded by it in para 8 of its order has only come to a finding of fact in para 13 that the cash credit of Rs. 10,000 did not fall in the 'previous year'. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
