GHANSHYAM JANGID Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Hari Om Maratha, -
(1.) THESE are two appeals by the same assessee for consecutive assessment years viz., 1992-93 and 1993-94 are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
ITA No. 798/Jd/2007; Asst. yr. 1992-93
(2.) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 10th Sept., 2007.
Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a carpenter, who derived, income from work of carpentry and from interest, besides having agricultural income. He did not maintain regular books of accounts. A survey under Section 133A was conducted on 19th Nov., 1997 at his shop on the basis of a tax-evasion petition (TEP). It was found during this survey that he had invested Rs. 71,000 and Rs. 55,364 the relevant year, therefore, proceedings under Section 147/148 were initiated against him for three assessment years. The assessment order for asst. yr. 1992-93 was made on 18th March, 2002. The AO made various additions including the addition of Rs. 71,000. These additions were upheld by the learned CIT(A). The matter travelled upto Tribunal and in the first round Hon'ble Tribunal set aside the entire assessment order appeal vide order dt. 1st July, 2005 for asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94. The Tribunal observed while restoring the issues that as per learned Authorised Representative the assessee was engaged in agricultural activities since long and was also carrying on nominal business as proprietor of M/s Balaji Timber Udhyog, near bus stand, Ladnun. The Hon'ble Tribunal felt it just to restore the entire matter back for de novo consideration after providing proper opportunity to the assessee. In the second round, the learned AO gave proper opportunity to the assessee, who submitted his case with the help of evidences. Various additions were repeated and these are the subject-matter of this appeal.
(3.) THE first ground is general in nature. THE second ground relates to sustained addition of Rs. 71,000. THE facts apropos this ground are that the assessee had admitted having invested Rs. 71,000 in two plots purchased in his and his wife's names. THE assessee apart from contesting the very admission and the statement has also filed affidavits of self and his wife in proof of the claim that the investments of Rs. 35,500, each, was made independently by them out of loans. Affidavits of Shri Babu Lal and Shri Shanti Prakash dt. 1st Dec., 2006 were filed in which they have admitted having given advances of Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 17,000 respectively and that these were received back by them. During the course of assessment proceedings, the statements of Shri Babu Lal and Shri Shanti Lal were also recorded. Likewise Smt. Nani Devi w/o the assessee filed her affidavit dt. 1st Dec., 2006 stating that she had received sums of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 10,000 from Shri Seetaram, Shri Hemant Jangid and Shri Rameshwar Lal Jangid, respectively. THE statements" of all the three persons were recorded by the learned AO. But still the AO did not agree and made an addition of Rs. 71,000 mainly because in the first round the assessee had not tendered these evidences and that an admission was made in this regard. On almost similar reasoning, the learned CIT(A) has also confirmed this addition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.