9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has raised following issues in the grounds numbered as 1 to 7 mentioned in the Grounds of Appeal. (a) Amount of Rs.15,45,000/- received from Manju Enterprises not considered as a source for making undisclosed investments. (b) The bank loans of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,90,900/- obtained from Indian Overseas Bank and Federal Bank respectively not considered as source for making undisclosed investments. 3. The grounds numbered as 8 and 9 are general in nature though it refers to the claim of certain sources of funds and investments. However, the Ld A.R did not argue on those grounds and further nothing was mentioned in the written submissions about these grounds. The grounds also do not refer to any particular source of funds/investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the assessee is that the AO did not consider the amount of Rs.15,45,000/- received from M/s Manju Enterprises as a source. The facts relating to the same are discussed in brief. During the course of search, several slips relating to the deposit of cheques into the bank account of the concern M/s Manju Enterprises were found. The aggregate amount of the said deposits stood at Rs.15,45,000/-. The AO added the entire amount of Rs.15,45,000/- in the hands of the assessee in the original assessment order dated 29.11.1996. 6. In the appeal originally filed before the Tribunal, it was contested that the deposits aggregating to Rs.15,45,000/- made in the Federal Bank account (of M/s Manju Enterprises) was considered as credit in the bank a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount belonging to the partnership firm, M/s Manju Enterprises, the Tribunal thought it fit to remand the matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal also observed that if there is evidence to show that the said deposits were made by the assessee himself, then it is for the assessee to explain the sources there of. The Tribunal also observed that the AO should also consider the plea made by the assessee before the Tribunal in the original appeal filed viz., the deposits assessed in the hands of the assessee should be considered as a source for making investments and outgoings. 9. After the receipt of the order of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2003, the AO passed an order dated 27.02.2004 giving partial effect to the order of the Tribunal. In tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red this new plea of the assessee and has recorded a clear finding that the assessee has failed to prove the receipt of loan amount of Rs.15,45,000/-. As stated earlier, the AO did not consider the amount of Rs.15,45,000/- either as unexplained deposit or a source, i.e., the AO has accepted the original plea of the assessee that these deposits actually belong to M/s Manju Enterprises. 12. Thus, it can be seen that except in the first assessment order passed on 29.11.1996, the net effect of computation pertaining to Rs.15,45,000/- was that the amount of Rs.15,45,000/- was never considered as the undisclosed income of the assessee. 13. On the contrary, the assessee has taken a new plea before the AO while passing the assessment order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
