9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Act is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order dated 14th July 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in I.T.A. No.519/RJT/2008, by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present Appeal. The following three questions arise for consideration before us: &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings the Assessing Officer himself had accepted the position that the assessee had maintained quantitative details and that the general profit was on the higher side. We further find that in remand report also, the Assessing Officer could not justify the lump-sum addition other than making a short statement that addition was justified on books, vouchers, etc. as produced before him. In su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in its business. In such circumstances, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below held that these transactions were of an integrated nature and were entered into to guard against future losses and, therefore, came within the exception to Section 43(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, we find that the Tribunal below was quite justified in upholding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w rightly affirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 of the Act as the cash credits were treated to be explained. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with such concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below. Thus, no substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
