Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(JP.)744
1. The above cross-appeals are against the order of learned CIT(A), dt.5th June, 2003 for the block period asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 2000-01 and upto 9th Aug., 2000. Search was conducted on 9th Aug., 2000. For the sake of convenience, we have decided to take assessee's grounds of appeal and the related grounds in Departmental appeal first and then remaining grounds of the assessee's appeal as under: Ground No. 1 (1) (Assessee's appeal): Confirming the addition in respect of cash found amounting to Rs. 26,910 Ground No. 1 (Departmental appeal) : Reducing the addition of Rs. 3,18,370 to Rs. 26,910 on account of unexplained cash 2. The brief facts of this ground are that a search was conducted at the business and residential premises of the assessee on 9th Aug., 2000. During the course of search cash of Rs. 1,56,380 was found from rooms of different family members at the residence and Rs. 26,910 from business premises as mentioned by the AO at p. 3 of the order. The assessee in the block ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(JP.)185
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 25th Sept., 2003 for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. During the course of hearing, none attended the case on behalf of assessee-respondent but the written submission filed by the assessee was considered by the Bench. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing to allow relief under Section 89(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in addition to the exemption admissible under Section 10(10C) of the Act when in the light of clarification issued by the Board vide Instruction F. No. 174/5/2001-02, dt. 23rd April, 2001, such relief is not admissible as the mistake of law is also an apparent mistake and tae CBDT is empowered to interpret the law.4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an ex-employee of SBBJ. On voluntary retirement, he received ex gratia of Rs. 7,36,123 and the return was filed and processed under Section 143(1) claiming a relief of Rs. 61,540 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(JP.)67
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 22nd Oct., 2002 for the asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The Department has raised the issue in its ground No. (I) which reads as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (6A) of Section 139 of the IT Act, coupled with the fact that the audit of the company was finalized much after the close of the assessment year, the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, erred in holding that 'since no notice under Section 139(9) has been issued by the AO to the appellant, the acceptance of the return filed on 29th Dec, 1989 cannot be denied. Therefore, the original return filed by the appellant was well within the time and the appellant is entitled for carry forward of assessed loss'. Even if the AO issued the notice under Section 139(9) immediately after the filing of the so-called provisional return, the assessee was not in a position to remove the defect within th...
Tag this Judgment!