TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 28.7.2005 in ITA No.84 (ASR)/2004, in respect of assessment year 2000-01, proposing following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining an addition of Rs.1,18,000/- towards investment in construction of 'Air Pollution Control Device', despite appreciating that the source of the said investment stood duly explained by the assessee and accepted by the authorities below? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the assessee's 'specific ground of appeal' whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer observed that the assessee could not justify the investment out of the income declared and offered additional income of Rs.1,50,000/- as per order sheet dated 24.1.2002 which was signed by the assessee. Accordingly, addition of amount was made to the income of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal and submitted that source of investment was duly shown in the capital statement filed before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, addition was not justified. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that part addition was justified as the difference counted by the Assessing Officer was Rs.1,18,000/- and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition to the extent of surrender. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is justified in contending that the A.O. without any basis had proposed to make the addition of Rs.6,35,000/- as it was not based upon any facts or inspection at the spot by him. However, we may mention that the A.O. has not taken this figure ultimately in the assessment order because whatever figure the assessee has shown in a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- was taken into consideration. The case of the A.O. is based upon the surrendered Rs. 1,50,000/-. On this basis, the addition is made and confirmed by the CIT(A). However, we find that the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- is unjustified as even ultimately the difference as counted by the A.O. was Rs.1,18,000/-. It is case of the A.O. that the investment in the construction of Chimney is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter to Rs.1,18,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed partly and the A.O. is directed to restrict the addition of Rs.1,18,000/-." 7. From above it is evident that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that there was difference in the investment as estimated/reported at the time of survey and at the time of assessment, to the extent of Rs.1,18,000/-. It was observed that even if availability of bricks with the assessee was taken into account, investment in the construction of Chimney was not proved. The contention raised is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. In para 6.2 of the order, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the revenue for addition of Rs.1,18,000/- on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
