TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... materials on record and after due comparison of the two accounts ultimately, held in favour of the assessee. The appeal is more on factual aspects rather than on any substantial question of law. We would not like to disturb the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 113 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2019 - MR J. B. PARDIWALA AND MR A. C. RAO, JJ. For The Appellant (s) : MRS MAUNA M BHATT (174) ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act, 1961 ) is at the instance of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 held as under : Let us first understand the case of the Assessing Officer. His short point was that since capital shown to have been introduced in the capital account of Jay Jewellers does not find corresponding entries in the capital account of the assessee and are in fact much more than capital account credit in the hands of the assessee, and, therefore, the introduction of capital in the accounts of Jay Jewellers stands unexplained. This point, as noted in the remand report, is fallacious. The assessee has one set of accounts for himself, as an individual, and the other set of accounts for his sole proprietorship concern, Jay Jewellers. It is indeed true that the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different twist. He has noted that the assessee has, in his personal books of accounts, accepted unsecured loans of ₹ 8,52,58,022/-, including an amount of ₹ 7,91,19,400/- from Harshad Jewellers, and the assessee was required to have established their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions in respect of loans taken in the personal account. That, however, was not the case of the Assessing Officer nor any requisition in respect of the same was made at the assessment or appellate stage. The addition under section 68, in such a case, should have been made for ₹ 8,52,58,022/-, and not ₹ 1,85,65,955/- - as is the situation in the present case. What is before us is the addition of ₹ 1,85,65,955/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
