Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 185 - HC - Income TaxSubstantial question of law - challenging the Order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Block assessment - Search operation u/s 132 - seized agreement to sell marked as AD 46 - cash found - addition made by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the present assessee had not signed the agreement in question and since the assessee had not signed the agreement, no liability can be attributed qua that agreement towards the assessee since he is not party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere fact that this agreement was found in the possession of the assessee does not lead us anywhere. We find no hesitation in holding that this addition of Rs. 17,00,892 made by the Assessing Officer is based on surmises and guess work. Addition on account of cash found in the bed room of the assessee at the time of search - The assessee has not disputed this recovery. However, the case of the assessee is that this represented cash remaining from the withdrawal from his bank account from time to time and a sum was received by cheque No. 345947 and the assessee has furnished cash flow statement to this effect also. It has been held by the Tribunal that in the instant case the withdrawals shown by the assessee are far in excess of the cash found during the course of search proceedings. No material has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) to support their view that the entire cash withdrawals must have been spent by the assessee and accordingly, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessment is legally not sustainable u/s 158BC of the Act and the same was rightly ordered to be deleted. Thus, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeal against the order which involves a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
|