9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment of the respondent was completed under section 143(3)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for the short "the Act of 1961"), by order dated September 24, 1997, passed by the Assessing Officer (annexure 1). The Commissioner of Income-tax opined that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and by exercising power under section 263 by order dated August 31, 1999, held that the opening balance, in the capital account in Asian Marbles and Asbestos, as on April 1, 1992, shown by the assessee at Rs. 2,73,500 represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and was taxable in the assessment year 1993-94 in the absence of any proof regarding its accumulation in the earlier ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 1993-94 altogether omitted to consider this issue of capital shown as Rs. 2,73,500 on April 1, 1992, and passed the order of re-assessment on September 24, 1997. The Commissioner of Income-tax, after hearing the representative of the assessee, by order dated September 24, 1997,held that the opening balance of the capital account in Asian Marbles and Asbestos as on April 1, 1992, shown by the assessee at Rs. 2,73,500 represents the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and that is taxable for the assessment year 1993-94. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, in appeal, I.T.A. No. 486 (JDPR) of 1999 for the assessment year 1993-94 filed by the respondent, held that it is a case of unexplained investment under section 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the income of the assessee of the accounting year for which the books are maintained. It appears that the Tribunal has considered the issue regarding the assessability of the capital while considering the assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No. 71(JDP) of 1999 for the assessment year 1993-94 by order dated December 6, 2001, whereby the Tribunal held that it is not a case of introduction of cash credit but it is a case of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act of 1961 and the appropriate previous year for inclusion is the relevant financial year and, therefore, the opening capital account cannot be added as an un-explained investment under section 69 of the Act of 1961 for the assessment year 1993-94. The Tribunal also held that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant delivered in the case of CIT v. Ashok Timber industries [1980] 125 ITR 336 (Cal) has no application to the facts of this case because of the reason that the genuineness of the capital introduction in this case has already been adjudicated by the assessing authority for appropriate financial year, i.e., 1992-93, therefore, it cannot be said to be unexplained investment after the order passed by the s assessing authority holding genuine capital introduction for the assessment year 1992-93. In view of the reasons mentioned above, it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
