2005 (11) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal, following questions are raised : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not rectifying its earlier order, and sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 50,000 instead, of Rs. 48,500 despite the fact that 2/3rd investment in pawning business at Rs. 72,750 was accepted by the Tribunal ? 2. Whether, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel for the appellant submits that the correct figure is Rs. 48,500. The AO on the basis of the record considered the amount found for the period from 26th Oct., 1993 to 13th Dec., 1994. At the time of search, assessee himself admitted that Rs. 75,750 had already been advanced. On the basis of this figure and the material found total amount in the block year comes to Rs. 1,15,250 and on the ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pressed and addition had been made on the estimate basis. There is no apparent mistake, which can be rectified. 6. The next issue involved in these questions is whether assessee is entitled for deduction under Chapter VI-A. That was also rejected in appeal on the same ground that was not pressed. In the miscellaneous application also, that ground was rejected as the ground was not pressed at t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come is determined on positive calculation, no separate addition for this amount should be made. While arguing this ground, the learned Authorised Representative has not placed any material on record to show the actual calculation. The AO has also made lump sum addition on the basis of investment, which is direct approach based on assets. We, therefore, treat this ground of appeal as not pressed a....