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

1994 (9) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that he is a dealer of silver for the last ten years and is also an income-tax assessee from the assessment year 1986-87. He has challenged the order dated August 1, 1994, under section 132(5) read with section 132(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(3), Ahmedabad, whereby it is ordered that due to unsatisfactory explanation given by the pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chowk Co-operative Bank Limited at annexure "J" collectively which throw light as to how the petitioner got money by account payee cheques from different parties. This was explained (in his reply dated March 22, 1994, annexure "J") to the Assistant Director of Investigation. In that reply dated March 22, 1994, in paragraph 3, it is specifically stated as regards the source of income of Rs. 12,30,0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the petitioner, he has issued account payee cheques for getting draft of Rs. 12,30,000 and he has also paid Rs. 3,075 towards commission to the shroff by account payee cheque. Considering the aforesaid facts, it would not be possible to arrive at the conclusion by any standard that the petitioner has failed to explain the source of purchase of silver. It cannot be held that the petitioner was....