9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contrary to the material on records and provisions of the Act, unjust and bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the assessment order which is contrary to the directions given by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench in its order dated 07/02/2011 while setting aside the erstwhile assessment order whereby mentioning to consider elaborately the submission of the assessee with respect to the additions made in the various years and after considering the same, frame an assessment de novo. 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in assessing as it is, contrary to de novo assessment, by referring to the undisclosed income of Rs. 9,31,410 as determined by the erstwhile Assessing Officers in their order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and after considering the same, frame an assessment de novo. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in assessing as it is, contrary to de novo assessment, by referring to the undisclosed income of Rs. 7,36,540/- as determined by the erstwhile Assessing Officers in their order dated 31/03/20061999 and subsequent set aside assessment order dated 31/03/2006 which in fact were set aside by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench vide its orders dated 26/04/2004 and 07/02/2011, respectively. 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 9,31,410 holding it to be undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period 01/04/1985 to 28/02/1996. 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome from tailoring from year to year, but the Assessing Officer rejected this submission as no proof was produced in support of it. It was argued by ld. Authorized Representative that since income of assessee was below taxable limit, therefore, no return was filed. He pleaded that in view of the decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Lahoti, 16 ITJ 572, the income below taxable limit may not be treated as undisclosed income. Respectfully following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the income below taxable limit for assessment years out of total undisclosed income, provided income assessed by Assessing Officer in the respective year is below taxable limit. We direct acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd payment of Rs. 30000/- towards purchase of house. This addition is covered by the income of Rs. 27,218/- disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed for the block period. Balance of Rs. 12,000/- is available with the assessee out of earlier year's income, which was already assessed in the assessment year 1988-89. 9. Addition made in the assessment year 1994-95 and 1995-96 amounting to Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1642/- respectively was not explained by assessee, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the same. 10. An addition of Rs. 70,580/- was made in the assessment year 1996-97. On account of unexplained investment in gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 62,180/- and unaccounted rental income of Rs. 8400/-. As the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of purchase of tanker. From the record, we found that the assessee had taken the tanker by executing hire purchase agreement with Betala Finance and the cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs dated 31.3.1990 was also given favouring Sanghi Brothers, Dealer of the Tanker. This cheque was bounced and another cheque was issued by the assessee on 10.4.1990. We also found that loan of Rs. 20,000/- was taken from Lalmani Pandey and a confirmation was alleged to be filed. However, the Assessing Officer also did not accept the same. It appears that the Assessing Officer has not properly evaluated the documents filed to explain the source of investment in tanker. In the interest of justice, we restore this ground back to the file of the Assessing Officer for decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 18. With respect to the addition made in the assessment year 1994-95, assessee could not substantiate its claim of loan taken from Nirmal Kumar at Rs. 15,000/- and gift of Rs. 60,000/- received on marriage. Accordingly, we confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 19. In the assessment year 1995-96, the addition was made on account of amount deposited in the bank at Rs. 1,99,400/- on 7.12.1994. Contention of ld. Authorized Representative was that it was the sale proceeds of the tanker. However, the Assessing Officer has not given any specific findings for such addition. Accordingly, we restore this ground also back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after considering the relevant evidence filed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
