9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench-B in ITA No. 1232/Chandi/2004 dated 23.12.2005 for Assessment Year 1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: 1." Whether in this case the Hon'ble ITAT was legally right in upholding the decision of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not accepted by the Assisting Officer and addition of Rs.1,22,604/-. It was observed that the assessee had made investment but the same has not been explained and accounts were not produced. 60% of the peak investment was treated as income. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax partly set aside the addition. It was also held that instead of taking 60 peak investment as income, the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come disclosed by the assessee of Rs.64,200/-. The only issue that survives for our consideration is whether the CIT (A) was justified to assess the commission @ 5% only. In the case of Shri Sanjay Chhabra, Prop.M/s Sanjay Chhabra Traders (Supra), the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench has accepted the commission of 5% on fruit supply as reasonable." 4. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 5. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
