TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded. On the basis of assessee’s admission, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.10,83,540/- to the income declared. The addition consisted of Rs.7,03,540/- on account of excess stock, Rs.2,75,000/- on account of showroom renovation and Rs.1,05,000/- on account of excess cash found. - immediately thereafter, on 13th March, 2002 assessee withdrew the admission and stated that there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Oral) CM APPL. 11963/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 76 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 76 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. ITA 875/2010 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act 1961") challenging the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's admission, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.10,83,540/- to the income declared. The addition consisted of Rs.7,03,540/- on account of excess stock, Rs.2,75,000/- on account of showroom renovation and Rs.1,05,000/- on account of excess cash found. 4. However, immediately thereafter, on 13th March, 2002 assessee withdrew the admission and stated that there was neither excess cash nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was neither excess stock nor excess cash nor any expenditure on furniture or renovation etc. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned CIT(A)" 6. We are of the opinion that in law an assessee is entitled to explain his admission. In the present case, the assessee has duly supported his retraction with the book results by filing necessary evidence. Since in the present case, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
