9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The issues raised in both these applications are common and, therefore, the same are heard together and disposed of by common order. 3. I.T.A. No. 17 of 1995 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal relating to the quantum addition sustained by the Tribunal. I.T.A. No. 84 of 1995 is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty levied und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of Rs. 3 lakh which was the subject matter of police complaint. The assessee explained that out of sum of Rs. 3 lakh, Rs. 2.50 lakh was received from his two sons and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was his own savings from agricultural income. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and added tax on the entire amount of Rs. 3 lakh and also levied penalty under Section 271(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the quantum addition and in any event the Tribunal ought to have allowed the said amount as business expenditure. 7. Similarly, the learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the facts of the present case, as the assessee failed to establish the source of income, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee only on the grounds that the assessee did not carry on business in gold ornaments and disallowing the claim of the assessee in spite of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Piara Singh- [1980] 124 ITR 40? 9. In I.T.A. No. 84 of 1995 the Tribunal is directed to forward the statement of the case on the following questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
