Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 715 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTUndisclosed investment - purchase of land - difference between the said seized paper and the seized ledger - The assessee has explained that difference amount was paid out of the cash of M/s. Barelia Coke Industries and since the transaction did not materialise, no entry was passed for the same in the books of the assessee. - Held that:- We have repeatedly requested assessee to identify the evidence, which, according to him, was not taken into account by the learned Tribunal. But he was unable to draw our attention to any such piece of evidence, which the learned Tribunal did not consider or omitted to consider. We have also called upon Mr. Sen to identify the document which the learned Tribunal should not have taken into account. To that also he was unable to give any answer, except that the sum of ₹ 60,000 was not paid by the assessee before us. But he does not dispute that from the records seized marked A- 1/1, it appeared that the sum of ₹ 60,000 was invested for the purpose of buying the land for the assessee and this sum was not debited to the books of account of the assessee. Assessee has no answer to the question as to whether the sum of ₹ 60,000 was recovered from the vendor. We are, as such, of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Tribunal affirming the addition is an unimpeachable order. Therefore the challenge on the ground of perversity is altogether unmeritorious. - Decided against assessee
|