9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.34,12,627/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of properties in view of the presumption laid down under Section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act as the assessee had failed to discharge its onus and further the findings of the Assessing Officer on the basis of seized documents and subsequent investigations had established that Shri Morabia and Shri Vinod Mehta were only name lenders? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) in giving the finding that Shri Morabia had disclosed this investment before the Settlement Commission and paid tax on it, whereas the records reveal that Shri Morabia had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who vide his order dated 29 th May, 2002 partly allowed the said appeal. The revenue took-up the matter before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also confirmed the order of CIT (A) on both issues. 5. Mr. Bhatt has submitted that the learned CIT (A) and the Appellate Tribunal have grossly neglected the findings of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the notings found during the course of search. He has further submitted that the notings and the investigations that were carried out by the Assessing Officer subsequently revealed that the assessee had made benami investment in the said properties and Shri Morabia and Vinod Mehta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted the addition and the said deletion has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also observed that in respect of plot no.113-126, CIT(A) has confirmed that these plots belong to him and had confirmed this transaction and assessed to tax. Thus, there is no justification of making any addition in the hands of respondent assessee. 7. Even with regard to the deletion of Rs.2,55,000/-. The CIT (A) has deleted the said addition on the ground that this cheque was reflected in the books of account produced during the course of hearing. The Tribunal has also observed that the learned DR could not bring any material contrary to the findings of the CIT(A). The Tribunal has, therefore, confirmed the order of CIT (A) on this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
