9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the unexplained payment of commission and excess stock of goods found in the searched premises.
Unexplained Payment of Commission: The search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were conducted, and the Assessing Officer made additions based on the statement of V.P. Jain regarding purchases made from the Bansal Group. However, the Tribunal held that post-search statements like V.P. Jain's could not be relied upon for proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act unless directly connected with incriminating material found during the search. The court cited precedents emphasizing that undisclosed income must be based on evidence found during the search, and statements recorded post-search without a direct nexus cannot be used against the assessee. Excess Stock of Goods: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, had excess stock of goods found during the search. The search party estimated the stock visually, leading to a discrepancy compared to the inventory in the books. The Tribunal found the estimation inadequate, suggesting a need for empirical basis rather than guesswork. It noted that a shortcut was taken during assessment, and employees' signatures on the panchnama did not certify the accuracy of the estimates. The court emphasized that a scientific investigation or empirical study should have been conducted, and mere guesswork cannot substitute for accurate assessment. Consequently, the alleged excess stock calculated by the revenue was deemed to be deleted by the Tribunal. Conclusion: The court found that no substantial question of law arose in both issues and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decisions regarding the unexplained payment of commission and excess stock of goods.
|
