TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also stating that he did not open the account from which the gift was made to the private respondent - Decided n favour of the revenue. Case relied on by assessee; Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Puneet Chugh [2011 (2) TMI 532 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] not to be relied upon. - ITA No.255 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2013 - Rajive Bhalla And Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon,JJ. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the gift received by Kamlesh Rani respondent from the N.R.E. account of one Sanjeev Gupta was bogus and, therefore, added Rs.2,22,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee filed an appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeals) which was dismissed on 18.11.2003. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee filed an appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition by holding that Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2.20 lacs made by the assessing officer towards income of the assessee as undisclosed u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the questions of law framed in the present appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue in ITA No.498 of 2005 titled as Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Puneet Chugh, decided o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the private respondent. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned and as it is admitted by counsel for the assessee that the questions of law framed in these appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue, in ITA No.498 of 2005, Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Puneet Chugh, find no reason to accept the argument raised by Counsel for the assessee. It would be approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
