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 / TMI Blogs / RSS

2005 (2) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat only the amount of peak credit should be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: 4. The respondent is being assessed to income-tax in the status of a registered firm. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of agricultural implements and iron scrap, etc. For the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer had noticed certain cash credits in the squared up accounts. He required the assessee-respondent to prove the genuineness of the deposits whereupon the respondent filed only confirmatory letters and did not produce any other evidence in suppo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be the peak credit. In respect of Mahesh Chandra Jain, the addition was only Rs. 2,000 being peak credit. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who has upheld the additions. Still feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the respondent had filed an application seeking permission to raise the following as additional ground of appeal: "That in view of the matter only the peak credits which works out to Rs. 7,200 only should have been considered for addition under section 68 and not Rs. 22,300 as added by the Income-tax Officer confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner." 7. Before the Tribunal, there was ....