2008 (1) TMI 921 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 158BD of IT Act, 1961.
2. Merits of additions made in block assessment proceedings.

Summary:

1. Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 158BD of IT Act, 1961:

In the cases of M/s Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers and M/s Pransukhlal Brothers, the assessees challenged the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 158BD. A search and seizure action was carried out u/s 132 at the residential premises of the partners of the assessee firms. Subsequently, assessments were initiated by issuing notices u/s 158BC. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings u/s 158BD was void ab initio as no material indicating undisclosed income belonging to M/s Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers and M/s Pransukhlal Brothers was found during the search of M/s Pransukhlal Jewellers. The Tribunal held that the provisions of s. 158BD could only be invoked if material found during the search indicated undisclosed income belonging to a person other than the one searched. Since no such material was found, the proceedings u/s 158BD against M/s Pransukhlal & Sons were deemed void ab initio, and the block assessment was canceled. However, in the case of M/s Pransukhlal Brothers, a diary found during the search at the residence of a partner indicated undisclosed income, thus validating the proceedings u/s 158BD.

2. Merits of additions made in block assessment proceedings:

For M/s Pransukhlal Jewellers, the assessee contended that the stock of each firm was mixed up and segregated, leading to potential errors. The Tribunal rejected this contention due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that valuation errors were detrimental to the assessee. However, the Tribunal agreed that the entire discrepancy on account of stock shortage could not be treated as undisclosed income. Only the Gross Profit (GP) on unaccounted sales could be added. Consequently, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1,49,842, representing the GP on unaccounted sales.

For M/s Pransukhlal Brothers, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,92,740 based on the undisputed diary. However, the Tribunal held that an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs could not be made solely based on a disclosure statement. The addition had to be based on material found during the search. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 13,72,257, comprising Rs. 6,92,740 (undisputed diary), Rs. 5,72,900 (GP on stock shortage), and Rs. 1,06,617 (excess stock).

Conclusion:

The appeal in the case of M/s Pransukhlal & Sons was allowed, while the appeals in the cases of M/s Pransukhlal Jewellers and M/s Pransukhlal Brothers were partly allowed.