9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elopment Trust Ltd. reported in [1986] 161 ITR 524, the addition by way of investment in postal time deposits during pendency of investigation about its genuineness could be said to be income from undisclosed sources of the assessee." 2. In view of the aforesaid, the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", had drawn the statement of the case and referred the question of law aforesaid for our opinion. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present application are that M/s. Ajanta Construction Company Limited, for short "the assessee", is a contractor. It filed its return of income on October 31, 1990, and assessment was completed on March 23, 1993, on a total income of Rs. 53,74,035. The business p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the postal time deposits were issued, denied their existence. However, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not offer any categorical explanation. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer observed that in view of the affirmation of the assessee in the criminal case that it had deposited the amount in the postal time deposits, no cognizance could be taken of the communication of the post offices. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and contended before it that the addition was unjustified and wrong because the post offices had denied the existence of the postal time deposits in the name of the assessee. The assessee further contended in appeal that he had invested t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment (page 530) : "It is unnecessary to refer to all the cases cited before us. It is sufficient to point out that there is a clear distinction between cases such as the present one, where the right to receive payment is in dispute and it is not a question of merely quantifying the amount to be received, and cases where the right to receive payment is admitted and the quantification only of the amount payable is left to be determined in accordance with settled or accepted principles. We are of the opinion that the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
