TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 68. Once the assessee failed to do so the consequences were bound to follow. In that view of the matter, both the additions are upheld and the questions formulated at the time of admission of the appeal are, accordingly, answered against the assessee - ITA No. 775 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Asha Arora, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prtush Jhunjhunwalla, Mr. Debasish De For the Respondent : Md. Nizamuddin, Mrs. A. Qureshi, Mrs.Soma Chatterjee, Advocates ORDER The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th September, 2004 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata in ITA NO.1492/K/02 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95 by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction, creditworthiness and identity of the loan creditors could not be established. The grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer in the order passed after the order of the Ld.CIT(A) has not carried out the directions given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the original order. We find that in the earlier appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to make enquiries. For making the enquiries the Assessing Officer wrote letter to the creditors but those were returned unserved as the creditors were not available at the address given by the assessee. Thus to say that the Assessing Officer has not made compliance with the Ld.CIT(A) order will not be fully justified. Even at this stage, the correct address of the loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bound to follow. In that view of the matter, both the additions are upheld and the questions formulated at the time of admission of the appeal are, accordingly, answered against the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. We are told that a miscellaneous application registered as M.A. No.71 (Kol) of 2005 was filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal after the appeal was dismissed. The miscellaneous application was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal. With respect to dismissal of the miscellaneous application no question of law was formulated. Therefore, we need not take into account the aforesaid dismissal of the miscellaneous application. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
