COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADURAI Vs. J CHELLADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revenue has filed the above appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.10.2001 in ITA Nos.1491 & 1532/Mds/2000 for the assessment year 1995-1996.

(2.) The above appeals were admitted on 09.08.2005 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) The respondent-assessee is an individual engaged in the business of bus transports in the name and style of M/s.Chellam Automobiles and also repairing service unit known as M/s.J.C. Industries. The assessee is also a partner in the partnership concern. He also earn dividend and interest income. The relevant assessment year is 1995-1996 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1995. A search was conducted in the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but there was no seizure of either cash or jewellery. However, fixed deposit receipts amounting to Rs.13,92,439/- relating to J.C. Trust and pro-notes for Rs.40,37,000/- were found and the same were seized by the authorities concerned. The assessee has made a disclosure of Rs.90,00,000/- under Section 132(4) of the Act. Later, the assessee filed a return of income on 31.10.1995 admitting total income at Rs.69,79,057/- including the long term capital gains of Rs.67,50,775/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 04.07.1996. Later, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and the assessing officer completed the assessment and determined the total income at Rs.2,26,68,981/-. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer determined total income under the head income from "capital gains" and income from "other sources" and also made number of additions and dis-allowances. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the appeal in part, against which, both the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partly allowed both the appeals. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue has filed the present appeals by raising the abovesaid questions of law.