Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2008 (9) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irmed by the CIT(A)? 2 The Assessment Year in question is 2003-04. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,55,685/- and in relation to this the Appellant has stated as under:   "The assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 58,500/- on 8.4.2002 without having cash balance on hand and further deposited a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- on 1.8.2002, whereas cash on hand was only Rs. 3,52,815/-. Since the assessee could not furnished details regarding the source of these cash deposits, an amount of Rs. 2,55,685/- (Rs.58,500/- + Rs. 1,97,185/-) was added to the total income of the assessee". 3 Admittedly, the aforesaid addition was made on the basis of rejection of Books of Account for the earlier Assessment Year viz. Assessment Year 2002-03 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the Appeal of the assessee on this count as recorded in paragraph No. 32 of the impugned order. 7 Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant. She was not in a position to point out that the earlier order of the Tribunal viz. order for Assessment Year 2002-03 has been modified in any manner. It was submitted that once the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) had not accepted the Books of Account of the assessee for the preceding year availability of cash in hands of the assessee during the previous year under consideration could not have been considered by the Tribunal. In relation to the second ground it was submitted that the addition was made as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of....