9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.04.2016 raising the following question for our consideration: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 15,06,500/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. Brief facts are that the appellant - assessee had filed the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch statement, he admitted that the assessee had handed over the said sum on 20.05.2005 at the Bilimora branch of the Angadia for delivery to Riyaz Lokhandwala at Mumbai. He also admitted that the Company had issued two receipts of Rs. 8,06,500/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- to the assessee. He could produce one of them on record. 4. The Assessing Officer also noted that statement of the appellant was reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have been relied upon. He in fact disowned ever having made such statement. The Tribunal did not accept the contention and dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant may be correct in contending that the statement of a person recorded by the police authority under section 161 of Cr.P.C would have limited utility. Had this statement been the sole basis for making the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
