2016 (8) TMI 962

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent : Mr. Kapil Goel, Advocate. ORDER 29.07.2016 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23rd November 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in ITA No.1837/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2009-10. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT to the extent it has deleted an addition of Rs. 70 lakhs made by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... explain why a sum of Rs. 78 lakhs should not be treated as unexplained income and added to its income for the AY 2009-10. 4. The Assessee in its reply dated 28th December 2010 pointed out that it had already surrendered a sum of Rs. 247.19 lakhs and that the aforementioned amount transferred to Chennai and Bhubaneshwar, and seized at the Railway Station were all part of the aforementioned sum ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee and which was surrendered formed the source for the amounts transferred to Bhubneshwar and Chennai and seized at the New Delhi Railway Station. The ITAT discussed the break up of surrendered amount and its utilisation as under: "6. ....As per the detailed breakup of the entries passed by the assessee on account of surrender shows that an amount of Rs. 45,00,000 seized by Income Tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e surrender of Rs. 2,47,85,236." (emphasis supplied) 7. Although, it was asserted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Department has disputed the books of accounts of the Assessee, the above passage from the impugned order of the ITAT states to the contrary. There is not a single line in the memorandum of appeal before this Court to that effect. Learned counsel for the Revenue refer....