TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this common order. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT') dated 08/05/2013 in ITA Nos. 562/Ahd/2008 with CO No.74/Ahd/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02 in the case of the assessee-Shri Saileshkumar Rasiklal Mehta and ITA Nos. 1510, 1511 and 1512/Ahd/2008 for the Assessment Years 2001-02,2002-03 and 2003-04 in the case of the assessee - Shri Kamleshkumar Rasiklal Mehta, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law; 2.1 In Tax Appeal No. 977/2013, the revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law; (A) Whether the tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 2,13,053/- in the bank account? (B) Whether the tribunal is right in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee never produced his books of account before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment nor he cooperated in any manner whatsoever with the Assessing Officer in finalising the assessment by furnishing the books of account and other details? 2.4 In Tax Appeal No. 980/2013, the revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law; (A) Whether the tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Act of unexplained cash credit of ₹ 5,78,779/- in the bank account? (B) Whether the tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dissatisfied with the aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer, respective assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the said additions by holding that the entire amount was routed to the bank account and the assessee discounted the cheques after the funds have been withdrawn from the bank. Thus, on merits the CIT(A) held that assessee explained the source and/or deposited the aforesaid amount. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the aforesaid amount, except the amount of ₹ 10,000/- against the total amount of ₹ 45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the case of Shaileshkumar Rasiklal Mehta in Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
