9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act.) against the order dated 29.07.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad has been admitted vide order dated 05.03.2003 on the following two substantial question of law, which is said to be involved in the appeal: 1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Smt. Urmila Devi, Rs. 15,000/- in the name of Sri Jamal Ahmad and Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Sri Mohd. Ashfaque. 3. The Assessing Officer asked the appellant to prove the nature and source of the deposits as required under Section 68 of the Act. After considering the material and evidence on record, the Assessing Officer accepted the deposits made by Smt. Urmila Devi and Sri Mohd. Ashfaque. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant both before the C.I.T.(A) and also before the Tribunal failed. 4. We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri A. N. Mahajan learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 5. Sri Shakeel Ahmad learned counsel submitted that so far as Sri Nazeer Ahmad is concerned he had appeared before the Assessing Officer and had admitted of having made a depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 of the Act. So far as Sri Jamal Ahmad is concerned, he did not appear and therefore, the identity and the source of this creditor was not proved. He therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal calls for no interference. 8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion under Section 68 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any further material being brought on record by the appellant, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in making the addition under Section 68 of the Act. In respect of the deposit of Sri Jamal Ahmad, suffice it to mention that Sri Jamal Ahmad did not appear before the Assessing Officer in spite of summon having been sent and the appellant also did not take any steps to produce him, thus the id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
