TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. The only endeavour of the learned counsel was to reappreciate the evidence so as to pursuade this Court to take a different view, which is not permissible - Appeals are dismissed - 775 AND 784 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2011 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTG. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Rajesh Katoch for the Appellant. ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 775 and 784 of 2010 as according to the learned counsel, an identical question of law is involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from ITA No. 775 of 2010. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 4-12-2009 passed by the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 to Rs. 3,60,400 and deleted the other two additions fully. Against the order of the CIT(A), the revenue as well as the assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 4-12-2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and allowed that of the assessee. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the assessee had taken back the amount from the employees which was paid to them as salary and, therefore, the same was taxable in the hands of the assessee itself. 7. The Tribunal while affirming the findings of CIT(A), after elaborate discussion had concluded that the Assessing Officer was not right in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though there is apparently no evidence of such duress etc., this aspect is to be seen keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances. As brought out in the assessment order also, the statements of other 11 employees was also recorded during the course of search. Even the names of these persons are mentioned in para 10.2 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer admits in the assessment order itself that all these statements were in favour of the appellant. However, he has rejected such evidence on the ground that the employees would speak in conformity with interest of their employees. However, again the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be justified in rejecting the evidence as above on this ground. Whereas he has based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document has been discussed which showed that the appellant did not retain part of cash withdrawn from the respective bank accounts of the employees. If the version of the Assessing Officer was correct, there should have been least some evidence found during the course of search in this regard. The increase in salary from assessment years 2005-06 to 2006-07, in itself would further not constitute conclusive evidence that the appellant claimed certain in genuine expenses under the head. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am not inclined to agree with the Assessing Officer that the appellant inflated expenses under the head "Salary". Though on the basis of statement of Shri Surinder Miglani recorded during the course of search, adverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
