TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary for the assessee to explain the source of the amount in its hands during that assessment year and this perhaps having been not done by the assessee, the Assessing Officer thought it fit to add back the amount as unexplained income of the assessee. - Appellate Commissioner, purporting to follow the ruling of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rendered in the case of the very assessee for the earlier assessment years, viz., 1993-94 and 1994-95, allowed the appeal, set aside the assessment order and directed deletion of the additions – Tribunal confirming order of Appellate Commissioner – Tribunal’s earlier order set aside by HC – impugned matter is remanded to Commissioner (A) to decide the matter afresh - 407 and 408 of 2004 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amounts to the taxable income of the assessee, i.e., a sum of Rs. 48,59,000 as taxable income to the already disclosed amount of Rs. 2,49,927 and concluded the assessment on such premise after making adjustments in respect of other claims and deductions, etc. 5. A resultant assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer assessing the total taxable income at Rs. 45,07,680 and the tax liability with surcharge at Rs. 20,73,532, to which was added the interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act and, after necessary adjustments, resulting in a demand for Rs. 40,19,960. Separate proceedings were directed to be initiated under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for levy of penalty. 6. The assessee having appealed to the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee that in respect of the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of the very assessee, the Revenue did ultimately prefer an appeal, like the present appeal and for the assessment year 1994-95 and that appeal, which was numbered as I. T. A. No. 8 of 1999, has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this court in terms of the judgment dated October 19, 2006, by allowing the appeal of the Revenue and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer as requested by the learned counsel for the Revenue as also the learned counsel for the assessee, for re-examining the entire thing and to assess afresh the exact tax liability of the assessee for that year in the light of the original return which had been filed in that case, as it was found as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year and this perhaps having been not done by the assessee, the Assessing Officer thought it fit to add back the amount as unexplained income of the assessee. 13. However, Sri Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that the Assessing Officer having not necessarily indicated that it is being done with a specific statutory provision, there cannot be any such assessment only on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 14. Be that as it may, it may not be necessary to go into further on this aspect here in this appeal, as we think it proper to remand the matter to the first appellate authority, for the reason that the first appellate authority has simply followed an earlier or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
