2014 (8) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 31.3.1995 and 1.4.1995 to 12.12.1995, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal to consider the following substantial question of law. "(A).Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,41,074/- made on account of bogus purchases? (B).Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,49,000/- out of Rs. 7,57,000/- being undisclosed income on sale of house? (C).Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,90,000/- being disallowance of interest expense? (D). Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- being deemed income under Section 68 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the paper seized from the residence of the Assessee. He further submitted that the said house property belonged to Shri Revaram Sharma his father and therefore income from the sale thereof cannot be considered as income in the hands of assessee. He further submitted that there were total seven legal heirs of his father and therefore the entire sale proceeds cannot be taxed in his hands. Since the Assessee's share in the property of his father was to the extent of 1/7th only 1/7th at the most can be considered in the hands of the assessee. He placed on record the copy of the sale agreement at page 169 to 172 of the paper book. The learned D.R. on the other hands supported the order of Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard the rival....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal qua said question B is dismissed. 5.0. Now, so far as proposed question No.F i.e. addition of Rs. Rs. 4,23,000/- made on account of unexplained investment in house which came to be restricted by the learned Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered and observed in para 36, as under: "36. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that Assessing Officer has noted that the Assessee had not submitted any new explanation or evidence in support of his contention that the funds used for construction of house belonged to his father. We find that the Assessee has filed an explanation but the same could not be substantiated by the Assessee or controverted ....