- (1.) Heard on the question of admission.
(2.) Question raised in the appeal is whether the order passed by the ITAT affirming the order of CIT(A) with respect to addition of Rs.2,14,309/- is appropriate. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.2,14,309/- which has been affirmed by CIT(A) as well as by the ITAT. In Para-4.3 of its order dated 2.12.2010, CIT(A) has given following reasons for affirming the addition of Rs.2,14,309/-:- 4.3 As mentioned by AO in the assessment order, appellant has shown liability of Rs.2,14,309/- in the name of M/s. Shree Guru Kripa Stones Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently in the revised return filed by him no such liability was shown and it was claimed that the amount has been paid in cash on various dates. This claim of the appellant is only an after thought. AO has mentioned in detail in the assessment order that there are various cutting and overwriting in different bills. This indicates that appellant has manipulated his accounts as per his convenience. This also proves that the liability of Rs.2,14,309/- shown by him in the original return was bogus. AO is therefore justified in making addition of this amount. The addition is confirmed. Ground No.2 is thus dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that elaborate discussion has not been made by ITAT in the impugned order. Thus, the order passed by ITAT is bad in law.;