TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the CIT(A) in both the appeals wherein it has agitated on the ground that the learned CIT(A), in the case of Shri Ladu Ram (ITA No. 122/Jp/1999), erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 16,58,987 and Rs. 8,29,868 in the case of Shri Mool Chand (ITA No. 123/Jp/1999). 2. The brief facts in the case of Shri Ladu Ram are that he is a UDC in a primary health centre of Rajasthan Government at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion with the above land. He had denied to have any relation with this transaction and further stated that the cheques of compensation were received into his bank account from where employees of Ram Kishan withdrew the money. For this purpose, his signatures on certain blank bearer cheques and papers were obtained. 4. The facts are similar in the case of both the assessees. Both the assessees had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the finding of the CIT(A) at p. 5 of his order, it was held in the case of Shri Ram Kishan Agarwal that both the assessees in their statements had voluntarily admitted that the investments made in these lands were made by Shri Ram Kishan Agarwal, son of Shri Shiv Nath Agarwal and, accordingly, the compensation awarded by UIT, Alwar, was credited in their account and was withdrawn by the empl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by the UIT, Alwar, and compensation paid. Thus, it appears that this is a clear case of double taxation which was not permissible by law. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) had deleted these additions. 8. The learned Departmental Representative (IT) contended that both the assessees had voluntarily filed their returns of income and the revised returns filed by these persons were beyond the time-li....