2009 (7) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UMAR GOEL, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench-B in ITA No. 1232/Chandi/2004 dated 23.12.2005 for Assessment Year 1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: 1." Whether in this case the Hon'ble ITAT was legally ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted by the Assisting Officer and addition of Rs.1,22,604/-. It was observed that the assessee had made investment but the same has not been explained and accounts were not produced. 60% of the peak investment was treated as income. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax partly set aside the addition. It was also held that instead of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs.6,23,550/-. This is in addition to the income disclosed by the assessee of Rs.64,200/-. The only issue that survives for our consideration is whether the CIT (A) was justified to assess the commission @ 5% only. In the case of Shri Sanjay Chhabra, Prop.M/s Sanjay Chhabra Traders (Supra), the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench has accepted the commission of 5% on fruit supply as reasonable." 4. We....