9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was admitted long ago in the year 2000, no question of law has been framed. Having considered the materials on record and with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, the following question of law is framed for consideration:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and on the true interpretation of the provisions contained in Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, any amount other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order, the A.O. added a sum of Rs.25 lakhs over and above the specific amount of Rs.15,17,060/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner, however, remanded the matter for re-consideration by the A.O., who proceeded to affirm his previous findings but on the basis of more elaborate reasons. The Appellate Commissioner, on being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts presented by the assessee are rejected, it is open to the ITO to arrive at a fair estimate and record his findings on that basis. Consequently, the estimation ultimately adopted, i.e. Rs.15,17,060/-, could not be faulted with. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in P. Abdul Khadar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, 'ITR 38 (1960) 341, in support of his submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Court, the language of section 68 does not admit to the interpretation that the reference to 'any sum' which is found to be 'credited' in the assessee's book for any particular year can mean only one thing, i.e. the actual sum found in the books for the concerned previous year and which is unexplained. In this case that amount was Rs.15,17,060/-. The judgment of the Madras High Court is onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
