2009 (7) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deletion of sum of Rs.37,71,931/- being the difference in stock value found? [ii] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessee has discharged burden of proof cast upon him for Rs.11,00,000/- being the advance paid for purchase of land especially as the same was not shown in the Trial Balance? [iii] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not considering the fact that the voluntary statement  made without any coercion or duress nor retracted given could form basis for the Assessment?" 3. As far as the first question of law is concerned, a perusal of the order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the sum of Rs.11,00,000/- which was one other discrepancy noted at the time of survey is concerned, the explanation of the assessee was that the said sum was received from one Mr. Chellappan as advance for the sale of agricultural lands. In support of the said stand, the assessee produced certain documents which related to the sale of agricultural lands stood in the names of J. Rakesh and J. Meena in favour of Mr. Chellappan.  The receipt of the said sum was stated to have been shown in the list of trade creditors for which the explanation offered was that the same came to be made due to lack of accounting knowledge. One other material in support of the said stand was the statement of Mr. Chellappan himself, which was produced before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he CIT (Appeals).  In this context, we only wish to refer to the following two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., [i] (1967) 66 ITR 462 (Udhavdas Kewalram Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City) and [ii}(1972) 86 ITR 44 (Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax , Delhi and Rajasthan),  wherein it has been stated as under and leave it at that. [i] (1967) 66 ITR 462 (Udhavdas Kewalram Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, BombayCity)  "The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Indian-tax Act: it is invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and reco....