AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erabad (for short "Tribunal") in I.T.(SS).No. 8/Hyd/2002, dated 31.05.2007 for the block period between 01.04.1987 to 11.02.1999. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri Naga Deepak on behalf of Sri S. Ravi for the appellant and the learned senior standing counsel Sri J.V. Prasad for the respondent. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal are as under: 4. The appellant is a Managing Partner of M/s. A.N. Cigarette Trading Company, which is a partnership firm, engaged in distribution of 'Four Square' cigarettes in Hyderabad city. A search operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 11.02.1999 on the residential premises as well as the business premises of the appellant. During the course of search, certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.2000. Written replies were also filed through the Chartered Accountant from time to time. 7. A detailed questionnaire dated 06.10.2000 was issued to the assessee to explain as to how the admitted income has not been offered. In response, the assessee filed his reply dated 12.12.2000 and not satisfied with the same, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide his office letter dated 21.12.2000 asked the assessee to substantiate his explanation. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 27.12.2000. The A.O. did not satisfy with the explanation filed by the assessee and was of the view that explanation given by the assessee is only an after thought and assessee has failed to substantiate the explanation and came to conclusion that entire amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel referred to orders of CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal in a great detail and submitted that Appellate Tribunal committed erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,09,600/- only on the basis of statement of appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention: i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 177(AP); and ii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), 11. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (2023) 452 ITR 229 (SC) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore rejected being not pressed. (2) The CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,05,720/- out of the total addition of Rs. 8,05,720/- representing explained household expenditure incurred during the block period. The CIT (A) did not appreciate the appellant's contention that the domestic expenditure under consideration was met out of the cash available with the appellant, which was admitted by the appellant as undisclosed income during the earlier search operation conducted in 1986. (3) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that probability of the availability of funds which the appellant which was beyond doubt proved during the assessment proceedings itself and which explanation would cannot be ruled o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of G. Muralikrishna vs. ACIT and others, dated 08.09.2003 and recorded the reasons at paragraph-13, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. "13. Having heard the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that there is no dispute that the assessee has contended that the loose papers do not belong to him, therefore, the quantum of expenditure noted therein be not taken cognizance thereof inasmuch as, the medical expenses incurred on his daughter's delivery were met by her husband and father in law and not by the assessee. The revenue has placed no material on record to show that the loose papers are in the hand-writing of the assessee or the notings made therein are be....