TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal was legally correct to delete the credit appearing in the name of Sri Ratish Chand Gupta?" We have heard learned standing counsel and Sri P. K. Jain, who appeared on behalf of the respondent. Messrs. Sarvodaya Furnishers and Electricals (P.) Ltd., Meerut, the respondent, is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act. The dispute is in respect of the assessment year 1985-86. During the course of the assessment proceedings for that year, the Income-tax Officer noticed certain deposits in the account books of the assessee and one such deposit was of Rs. 50,000 appearing in the name of Ratish Chand Gupta. To substantiate the plea that the deposit in question was genuine and the money was taken on loan, the assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been admitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was filed before him. It was contended that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the additional evidence without recording a finding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in rejecting the additional evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal acted upon the additional evidence on its face value without directing any inquiry as to its correctness. On a consideration of the assessment order, we find that the Income-tax Officer has referred to a number of circumstances in support of his conclusion that the deposit in question was not genuine. For instance, we found that there was no past assessment record of the depositor on September 24, 1987, when he filed the confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 in cash to Sri Piyush Goel (director of the company) and he may have deposited the amount of Rs. 38,000 in his account. He could not give the details about the source of Rs. 38,000 which was deposited in his account on December 7, 1984. Sri Piyush Goel was a close relation of the depositor. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee requiring its reply on the aforesaid matters, but no reply was filed despite two adjournments taken. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it appears that some additional evidence was filed but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) refused to entertain the same. It is not in dispute and it is also apparent from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it has not addressed ....