The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Central) Pune v. Mr. Santosh Vasant Shetty
High Court
06 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Central) Pune v. Mr. Santosh Vasant Shetty
Date of order
06 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Central) Pune v. Mr. Santosh Vasant Shetty, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3332 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income-Tax(Central) Pune.
Vs.
Mr. Santosh Vasant Shetty.
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011.
P.C.
The question of law raised by the revenue in this appeal
reads thus :
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and
in law, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the
undisclosed income of the assessee to the extent of undisclosed assets/expenditure found during the search
while not disputing the method of computation of income adopted by the assessing officer which was based on the sworn statement of the assessee revealed u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
2.In the present case, the undisclosed income of Rs. 25,84,735/- determined in the block assessment was restricted to Rs. 13,50,000/- by the ITAT after taking into consideration the assests/investments/expenditure claimed to have incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal held that when the A.O. himself has accepted that the above amounts came out of the undisclosed income generated by the restaurant business of the assessee, the addition which can be made is only to the extent of such investments/expenditure.
3.
In our opinion,the decision of the Tribunal is based on
the finding of fact. No question o law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( A.A. SAYED, J. )
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.