GYAN CHAND ANIL KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the assessee with respect to the assessment year 1990-91 against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Income of Rs. 1,29,607 was shown by the assessee/ appellant whereas the Income-tax Officer (for short "the ITO") assessed his income at Rs. 3,57,990. Addition of Rs. 1,75,000 was made treating the credit taken front Shri Sonelal Jain as unexplained, an appeal was preferred by the appellant/asses see before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur, who deleted the addition so made by the Income-tax Officer. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the ITAT"). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered an addition of Rs. 75,000 as against addition of Rs. 1,75,000 made by the Income-tax Officer.

(2.) IN the present appeal the question which has been agitated is that the addition of Rs. 75,000 by the INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal is bad in law, since taking the loan was supported by the bank transaction. Thus, learned senior counsel, Shri B. L. Nema, submits that the addition of Rs. 75,000 is bad in law. It is his further submission that Shri Sonelal Jain was having an agriculture income from 33.24 acres of agricultural land owned by him and as a matter of fact, he had purchased the house property subsequent to the transaction. Thus, addition of Rs. 75,000 by the INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal is bad in law and the finding recorded is perverse. Hence, the aforementioned substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal for its consideration.