TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly sustained the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax treating Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment ?" The basic facts giving rise to the question is that the assessee was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the petitioner was reopened and she was asked to explain the transaction again. This time, the explanation given by the assessee was that one Muralilal Kedia, son of S. R. Kedia, who was previously the general manager of Orissa Cement Limited in which concern the husband of the petitioner was also serving as an officer, had approached A. P. Bajoria for a loan and the latter arranged the loan fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Bajoria Engineering Co. and a letter of confirmation was also signed by Arjun Prasad Bajoria on behalf of Bajoria Engineering Co. and the story of the loan having been taken from L. N. Sharaf came later when Arjun Prasad Bajoria made denial of having advanced any loan to the assessee. It was noted that L. N. Sharaf had filed a return of his income after four years of the due date. The shorta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., however, is that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable, inter alia, because the same is based on non-examination of Muralilal Kedia who was subsequently examined in the penalty proceeding and which has terminated in favour of the assessee. The reassessment order, however, shows that nothing had prevented, the assessee from examining Muralilal Kedia in the proceeding, ....