9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, which pertained to AY 1993-94, the question of law framed was: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 1,22,13,750/- (or such other amount as computed by A.O. Received in cash by the assessee) made by the Assessing Officer on account of booking of vehicles in the bogus names and premium on sale of these vehicles?" 3. The question of law framed in ITA No.1 of 2005 pertaining to AY 1994-95 was as under: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 12,33,048/- made on account of booking of vehicles-in the bogus/fictitious names?" 4. It must be noted at the outset that in both appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 50,65,547 on the above account to the taxable income of the Assessee. The said order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] by an order dated 15th May 1998 and the matter remanded to the AO. During the re-assessment, the AO by an order dated 30th March 2001 made an addition only in respect of those bookings where the amount had been received in cash. Thus a sum of Rs. 12,33,048 was added to the income of the Assessee. 7. The Assessee then filed appeals before the CIT (A). AS far as AY 1993-94 was concerned, the CIT (A) by an order dated 4th January 2002 held: "...it cannot be said that all the bookings made in abbreviated names belonged to the assessee and not to the genuine customers. This fact has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve reasoning, the addition made for AY 1994-95 was also deleted by the ITAT. 11. Having heard Mr Zoheb Hussein, learned counsel for the Revenue the Court is not persuaded to hold that the ITAT erred in appreciating the evidence before it or that its conclusions on that basis. The findings have turned purely on facts and the view taken was certainly a probable one. The AO's additions, which were upheld by the CIT (A) appeared to have proceeded on surmises and conjectures. As rightly pointed out by the ITAT without some cogent and credible material that the bookings were in fact made by the Assessee for itself, the additions ought not to have been made. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the questions framed in both appeals are answere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
