TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. 3. That CIT (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the addition of 35,000 on account of unexplained income as assessed by Assessing Officer. 4. That CIT (Appeals) has unrecoverable imposed a fine of Rs. 5,980. 2. In have heard the counsel for the assessee as well as the Ld. DR. 3.1 So far as facts relating to the issue involved in Ground No. 1 are concerned, the same as have been revealed from the record, are that the assessee had furnished his return of income for assessment year 1997-98 declaring an income of Rs. 42,140 on 23rd October 1997, which was inclusive of an income of Rs. 27,885 from assessee s personal business of trading in plastic granules and Rs. 14,225 as salary received from partnership firm in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 25,000 made on 18-9-1996 was consisting of this 15,000 and balance of Rs. 10,000 was out of current years income. The cash of Rs. 5000 and of Rs. 3,500 available with the assessee on 16-11-1996 and 18-11-1996 was also claimed to the out of current year s income. The Assessing Officer however did not accept thus explanation and considered the amount of Rs. 33,500 as from undisclosed courses. 6. It was in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case that the counsel for the assessee re-iterated the submissions made before the revenue s authority. The Ld. DR on the other hand has supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. After having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and various decisions r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance of Rs. 35,000 was not accepted as genuine. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed by the addition. 11. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the assessee s explanation with regard to receipt of Rs. 96,000 as from different persons (to whom the assessee had claimed to have given loans previously) was properly analyzed by the authorities and it was only after assessee s failure to substantiate the receipt of Rs. 20,000 from Nitin Jain and of Rs. 15,000 from Sh. N.K. Pokharial that the addition was made. Since the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of his claim of having received back the amount of Rs. 20,000 from Nitin Jain and of Rs. 15,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
