Law:

Section:

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1998-99 - Assessee dealt in business of supply of machinery and spare parts - Assessee did not maintain any stock register - On verification of records of assessee relating to sales and purchase bills maintained by it, Assessing Officer found certain number of excess bearings and as assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation about same, Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 69 treated investment as unexplained and made addition - Whether it is obligatory for assessee to maintain stock register so that one is able to ascertain actual position of stock lying with assessee in which he is trading - Held, yes - Whether since assessee failed to maintain stock register in course of his business, on facts, Assessing Officer was justified in invoking section 69 - Held, yes CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain [2004] 267 ITR 572/ 136 Taxman 3 (Delhi) [Para 7] and Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari[2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC) [Para 7]. ORDER A.M. Sapre, J. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) (sic) under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, against the orders, dated 28-4-2005, passed by ITAT in I.T.A. No. 397/Ind./2001. 2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law out of the impugned order of the Tribunal or in other words, whether two questions proposed by the appellant involves any substantial questions so as to admit the appeal ? It is not in dispute that the pre-requisite of admitting any appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act is to find out involvement of substantial question of law. 3. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act and hence, it merits dismissal in limine, resulting in upholding of the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. The dispute relates to assessment year 1998-99. The assessee deals in…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492