TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impounded document had in fact been canceled along with the narration. Thus no cognizance of the same was taken as two authorities under the Act. This was on the basis of concurrent finding of fact holding that there is no such payment of ₹ 4 lakhs as mentioned in the impounded document as it has been canceled by the respondent assessee by drawing a line across the amount and the narration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the order dated 21 December 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The Assessment Year involved is A.Y. 2004-05. 2. Mr. Arvind Pinto, the learned Counsel for the appellant urges only following two questions of law for our consideration: 1) Whether on the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot found satisfactory and this payment in cash was treated as payment out of undisclosed sources. Therefore the Assessing Officer added the amount of ₹ 4 lakhs as income of the respondentassessee by his order dated 31 December 2009. 4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 'CIT(A)') after examination of the impounded document relied upon by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en duly canceled by the assessee. Consequently it held no cognizance of the entry of ₹ 4 lakhs to Shri. J.V. could be taken for drawing any further interference. The Tribunal also records that nothing has been produced by the the revenue to controvert the finding of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. 6. We find that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal by their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
