9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing questions, stated to be substantial questions of law: "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29.45 lacs? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in allowing the telescoping of the impugned amount even when the basic facts relating thereto were not established by the assessee?" 2 The assessment year is the block period ending on 30th June, 1998. In this case, on 1st July, 1998 a search came to be carried out at the premises of the respondent-assessee. During the course of the search, a promissory note, executed on 4th May, 1998 by one Shri N.P. Desai on behalf of one Shri Amratbhai Karsanbhai was found. In terms of the promissory note it appeared that cash loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above referred amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was undisclosed income of the assessee. However, before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee submitted that in view of the availability of cash during the course of search, the assessee should be given telescoping of the amount of cash against the availability of cash. After considering the fact that during the course of search an amount of Rs. 29,45,000/- in cash had been found, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the explanation of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 29,45,000/- and restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 20,55,000/-. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, but did not succeed. 3 Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by one Shri N P Desai on behalf of Shri Amrat Karsanbhai Desai on 4th May, 1988. During the course of the assessment proceedings as well as proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee did not disclose the identity and other details of the borrower. Subsequently, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee disclosed the name of the borrower, pursuant to which, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings, once again made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent he had treated Rs. 50,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. However, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
