MORESHWAR MAHADEV BHONDVE Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Member (J) -
(1.) ALL these appeals pertain to the same assessee on similar issues for different assessment years, so they are being disposed off by this common order. In I.T.A. No. 2191/PN/2012 for A.Y. 2004 -05, the assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds.
"1. The learned CIT (A) -I, Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by learned AO Rs. 1,73,000/ - as against returned income of "Nil".
(2.) THE learned CIT(A) -I has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by learned AO only on the basis of declaration made during the course of search without appreciating fact that the said declaration has been retracted by the appellant. The learned CIT(A) -I has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by learned AO holding the investment in land of Rs. 173,000/ - has been made out undisclosed sources of income.
(3.) ALTERNATIVELY and without prejudice to the Ground of 1 to 3, the learned CIT(A) -I, Pune has erred in law and facts not appreciating the fact that the AO did not allow the deductions claimed for various expenditures, including land cost, depreciation on cars, while computing the taxable income.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.