9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for the year 1997-98. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the order is liable to be set aside as it enhances the income of the assessee? (ii) Whether the order is liable to be set aside as it tends to subject the income to dual taxation? (iii) Whether the error in the source of income amounts to concealment of income? (iv) Whether an assessee can be made liable to pay tax on the money which is not the income of the assessee and where the assessee has merely acted as a post office? (v) Whether the income can be presumed beyond the accepted statement of accounts? (vi) Whether the order is liable to be set aside being in non-appreciation and misreading of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax, Hisar, while taking the view that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and detrimental to the interest of the Revenue, issued a notice dated February 28, 2005, to the assessee under section 263(1) of the Act, requiring him to show cause as to why an appropriate order under section 263 of the Act be not passed in respect of the aforesaid credit shown in the account of M/s. Om Parkash and Co. The Commissioner, after hearing the assessee, came to the conclusion that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had taken a categoric stand that four credits were received by him from four different persons, namely, Sarvshri Vinod Kumar, Parveen Kumar, Banwari Lal and Sushil Kumar. In support thereof, he placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)© of the Act, but the remaining part of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax has been upheld, while observing as under : ". . . The case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that four credits were received from four persons, namely, S/Shri Vinod Kumar, Parveen Kumar, Banwari Lal and Sushil Kumar. In support thereof, letters of confirmations, affidavits, their statements of income, etc., were filed. Sections 68, 69, 69A, etc., place initial burden on the assessee to explain the source of credit, investment, money, etc. There could be two situations, namely, that- (i) no explanation is furnished, or (ii) the explanation is furnished. In the first eventuality, the sum can be charged to income-tax without any furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer on the facts on record. The fact is that the credits were received from certain persons for which there was no satisfactory explanation furnished by the assessee. Rather, the credits were stated to have been received from totally different persons and evidence, including affidavits was created to show that the credits were received from those persons." 6. After hearing counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned orders, we are of the opinion that on the basis of the material evidence available on the record, the Commissioner of Income-tax has recorded a pure finding of fact and on the basis of the said finding of fact, the Assessing Officer was directed to add a sum of Rs. 3.08 lakhs to the income of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
