SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE assessee has filed this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the 1997 -98.
(2.) IN this appeal, the assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the order is liable to be set aside as it enhances the income of the assessee ? (ii) Whether the order is liable to be set aside as it tends to subject the income to dual taxation ? (iii) Whether the error in the source of income amounts to concealment of income ? (iv) Whether an assessee can be made liable to pay tax on the money which is not the income of the assessee and where the assessee has merely acted as a post office ? (v) Whether the income can be presumed beyond the accepted statement of accounts ? (vi) Whether the order is liable to be set aside being in non -appreciation and misreading of the facts ?
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the orders passed by the AO, CIT, Hisar, as well as the Tribunal. On, On the basis of the informatiOn gathered from the file of M/s Om Parkash & Co., Charkhi Dadri, it was revealed that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with the said firm by cheque drawn On Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhiwani and source of such deposit was not verifiable from the return originally filed by the assessee. As such, due to failure On the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment, the proceedings respOnse to the notice, the assessee filed return showing the same income of Rs. 46,100, which was shown in the return additiOn of Rs. 68,000 being the amount deposited in cash in assessee's bank account and thus, the total income of the assessee was taken as Rs. 1,14,100. Later On, the CIT, Hisar, while taking the view that the order of the AO was 263(1) of the Act, requiring him to show cause as to why an appropriate order under s. 263 of the Act be not passed in respect of the aforesaid credit shown in the account of M/s Om Parkash & Co. The CIT, after hearing the assessee, came to the cOnclusiOn that before the AO, the assessee had taken a categoric stand that four credits were received by him from four different persOns, namely Sarvshri Vinod Kumar, Parveen Kumar, Banwari Lal and Sushil Kumar. In support thereof, he placed On record letters of cOnfirmatiOns, affidavits, their statements of income etc. As a matter of fact, it was found by the AO that the said stand taken by the assessee was totally wrOng, as the said credits did not flow from the aforesaid four persOns. However, it was observed that the alleged credits in the hands of the assessee were received to the extent of Rs. 3.08 lakhs from Sarvshri Surinder Sharma and Dinesh Kumar and the said mOney was advanced by the assessee to M/s Om Parkash & Co. alOng with an amount of Rs. 68,000, which was deposited by the assessee in cash. Therefore, On the basis of that reasOning, the AO had made additiOn of Rs. 68,000. The CIT, while cOnsidering all these facts, came to the cOnclusiOn that the AO has wrOngly accepted the explanatiOn with regard to an amount of Rs. unexplained investment over and above the additiOn of Rs. 68,000 already made as income from undisclosed sources and further directed to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.;