TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the court was delivered by M. M. KUMAR, J. - The revenue has approached this Court against the order dated 25.6.1993, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in I.T.A. No. 625(ASR)/1992, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. The revenue has claimed that the following substanial question of law would arise for determination of this Court:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in computing the assessee's income at Rs. 55,000/- as against the income of Rs. 6,18,150/- estimated by the Income-tax Officer?" 2. Before adverting to the submissions made on the controversy raised, few facts are necessary to notice as flows from the statement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed by the Assessing Officer and also his action of invoking the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,65,300/- was confirmed. 4. On further appeal filed by the assessee, the matter was considered by the Tribunal and it took the view that the diary seized during inspection of the premises of the assessee could not constitute a basis for making addition of Rs. 5,65,300/-. The Tribunal in its order dated 25.06.1993 unequivocally condemned the approach adopted by the CIT (A) in para 6.1 and 6.2 in its order dated 23.4.1992. The Tribunal after quoting para 6.1 and 6.2 from the order of the CIT (A), held as under:- "16. In view of the above, the basic question would be as to what inference should be drawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Assessing Officer." 5. In concluding para 22, the Tribunal categorically held that no addition was justified on the basis of entries in the impounded diary written in hand of one of the partners Shri Manjit Singh in the case of the firm and went on to add only a sum of Rs. 55,000/- as against the declared income by the assessee of Rs. 14,240/-. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue, has stressed that once a diary has been seized from the business premises of the assessee, which is found to be hand written by one of the partner Shri Manjit Singh then it cannot be discarded on any ground whatsoever. According to the learned counsel in the absence of any plausible explanation furnished by the firm through its pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Even the Fiat car bearing Registration No. PUL-7649 was not registered in the name of any of the partners. It was, in fact, registered in the name of one Mohinder Singh and, therefore, no addition on that account could have been made. It is on the basis of the aforementioned findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal that it was concluded that the entries were imaginary and no reliance could have been placed on such entries for the purposes of constituting a basis for recording an assessment order. Therefore, we are of the view that no question of law would arise as the order of the Tribunal is based on pure findings of fact. Accordingly, the question referred does not need to be answered and the reference is returned unanswered. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
